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.


Ex-Italian President 9/11 An Inside Job

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:33 PM
reply to post by pavil

Expert witness testimony is evidence itself. Would you ask a psychologist to provide "proof" of his diagnosis or opinion of a defendant? Would you need to see a list of every patient he has ever had and every book he has ever read?

I am not saying that Cossiga is beyond refute but the burden of proof is not on him.

Nothing is a certainty, and truth is determined by a preponderance of evidence. Cossiga's statements are only one exhibit of evidence among many, and the proof is in the pudding.

I am not trying to sway anyone to accept that 9/11 was indeed an inside job, only to be able to accept evidence as it is presented to make their own determination. I have not made a final decision myself, though their is an imbalance of evidence in favor of complicity.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:22 PM

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by unnamedninja

The reason I refer to Giuliani (obstruction of justice), Whitman (criminal negligence), and Silverstein (insurance fraud) is that these are "no brainer" charges, that should already have been laid.

When you lay one charge, no matter how insignificant, you are going to uncover other indictable perps. The whole ball of yarn will start to unravel.

The significance of an insignificant charge is that it will lead to other charges.

In my view the biggest failure of the 911 truth movement is not to have had a single charge laid. The truth movement has tried to do an end run around the perps and mop them all up at once. That has been a huge tactical error.

They should pick one perp and one charge and put all their force into getting one conviction. If they do that, other convictions will follow.

That makes a lot of sense. Y'know maybe it isn't too late for that to happen? I guess the momentum has been lost, but if someone were determined enough perhaps. Hey maybe we'll be lucky enough that Guiliani gets charged as he's getting his presidential running sneakers on. Chances are pretty astronomical though. But I can dream.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by unnamedninja]

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:38 PM
My Brothers!!!

The people who make the 9/11 are 1% of the population in the world.
They have many power, but they don't are many.
If we believe we can change the world, we do that.
We must belive, that's the 1st thing.
Then we must to spreed the word (the truth) about the agendum, they are making for the world.
The Universe rules for a good plan.
That's what we are made for.
Peace, we must think about peace, we must believe, then the Universe/GOD, will make ours way.
If we don't do that way, GOD/Universe will make that way(PEACE), no problem.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:49 AM
This could have been a great thread. Personally, I think it should be locked and new one started. I can't even reasonably sift though it because most of the posts are so irrelevent.

On topic:

How can anyone truely discredit this man without any shred of evidence? You keep asking CT's to prove he's correct. How about instead, you prove that we have no reason to believe him? Isn't that how that system is supposed to work? If a prosecutor brings in a witness, the defense challenges what he says and possibly discredits him with reasonable evidence - and vice versa.

So please, does anyone have anything relevent to say? A man who has held many important positions and someone who could be considered an expert on this rare subject has just spoken out and this is the best you guys can do on a thread?

I don't post because I don't have access or the knowledge to discredit these people... and guess what, neither do most of you. That's why I read instead of posting.

To people who are derailing this thread and just speaking out of ingornance: You know who you are. Stop.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:28 AM
This, by the way, is an example of how a thread should be:

People with brains having an intelligent discussion

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 03:47 AM

post by CaptainObvious[/url]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

What makes him ANY different from any other American Hating Truther? He said it was an inside job. Where is the proof?

I resent the use of the word truther in the context of a person hating America. Many truthers are Americans just as red white and blue as I consider myself to be. Having served 6 years as a Vietnam era Veteran I don't feel I need to prove to anyone my love of this country.

Having said that I will suggest if anyone has any issues with hate it is you. I have read all 10,000 pages of the NIST report and like many others who have seen the manipulation of temp stats and fixing model data to fit the theory It makes for a good Public Relations piece but as Jay Howard says in Jref metatheory,, it makes lousy science.

"The guy is either joking, or hates the United States like so many others now do. If you read this other translation..."

Your angst aggression and overt hostility isn't limited to Americans I see but it would seem ANYONE that has thoughts or opinions other then your own "fixed" opinion, also hates America.

While I served in the military I had seen with MY OWN EYES many things I would not have believed we were capable of doing. I have seen the hypocrisy this Government has engaged in and I have been alive before the Kennedy Assassination.

It never ceases to amaze me how hostile those that believe unequivocally absolutely that any other belief or that the official "excuse" is a bona fide fact and proof prima facia because it isn't any more credible then if I were to tell you the man on the moon did it. If it misses the mark it misses the truth how far off the mark it misses is irelevent. I see what NIST did and ther aim was to satisfy us with a comprehensive report to explain in the best "possible" way that those towers could have fallen in the parameters given them.

What they did was shoot an arrow at the side of a barn then went up and painted a target around it.

Asking for proof when it is obvious you have no intention of listening to testimony of witness, professional or otherwise. The fact is you wouldn't even make it on a jury with your bias no more then those who have a bias for guilty. I make no aspersions to Alex Jones or Muslims and until I see proof that all those witness that said they heard explosions and all those experts engineers, military personnel that say it was a controlled demolition, all those fireman that knew hours before lunchtime that WTC7 was and I quote "being brought down". Until I hear that they all had some secret agenda or were being paid to lie

They're testimony has credence.

Isn't that the same tactic debunkers use when saying a conspiracy this big are you telling me they are all in it? That argument is as old as the manhattan project. If you want to use it,, I can too.

Prove all those witness are in some big conspiracy being told to say they heard pops and explosions that experts in controlled demolitions are only experts when they deny it was a controlled demo.

What about Controlled demo experts that say it was?

You talk of patriotism ?

what do you know about patriotism?

Was it Patriotic of George Bush to sit there in front of all those school children hearing the words " it has begun" or "it's happening" I say it that way because any other words to the effect "Mr President, we are being attacked" would have elicited the appropriate response ans he would have excused himself in favor of a national emergency.

What did he do,, he sat there for twenty mins reading books with the kids. I guess some schemes can't be rehearsed as no body told the president "oh By the way act surprised act concerned but above all ACT!" He did none of the above. but then again he isn't an actor let alone a good one. We talk about our free society and that the media isn't lieing. The media doesn't have to censor a damn thing here because the News isn't News anymore it's all garbage about Paris Hilton and Britney Spears shaved crotch getting out of her car. Whats to censor?

Speaking of Italy,, This is what they get as news so it doesn't surprise me they have this man saying what he is

When Bush said on national television after seeing the first plane hit (something of an impossibility at the time he says he saw it) he tells the audience " my first thoughts were mmm must have been pilot error"

That sure isn't what I thought,, and no I don't believe him.

Mr. Bush who's double standards when it comes to the rule of law were proven in his handling of the scooter Libby case. The people had spoken and he was found guilty, Yet anyone in the presidents "loop" gets off scott free establishing only one possible mindset. It is the type of arrogance I haven't seen since Watergate with Nixon.

It is when a President thinks he is above the law.

I have seen This man is so busy trying to cover lies at the same time he is trying to speak he can't even speak at all half the time. He isn't fast on his feet but that doesn't mean he is stupid that means he is preoccupied thinking of the perfect way to say something he knwos isn't true.

The next area of debate is the postulate our government had nothing to do with this. I have to agree they had nothing to do with it but they had everything to do with neglecting their sworn duties and obligations. They had so much forewarning it is undeniable. I have seen street cops start investigations with less probable cause.

While you may argue for physical evidence I would think someone as patriotic would be more concerned about the obstruction of justice that was being committed by removing the evidence of the biggest crime scene in our history. That would be probable cause but not satisfy you simply because you don't just want evidence you want PERFECT evidence and while your naivete is rather cute and endearing, it is ignorant regarding a professional crime.

Pros don't leave much evidence if any and even Al Capone could only be taken for tax evasion.

We may never know the truth about that fateful day but as long as it stays open for discussion Ill just weed through the wild stories that Jref debunkers posing as ATS CT's post here.

They have invited me to "indulge" in such sillyness to obfuscate and / or mis inform discredit anyone that is still not satisfied with NIST.

911 will be a very conscious open wound festering and exacerbated by an administration who knowingly let them get away with it.

He is complicit in so many ways that it stinks to high heaven.
He allowed Osama to go free and try again while we are in a quagmire called Iraq with no end in sight.

He has effectivly made America more screwed up

then I have ever seen her.

- Con

[edit on 9-12-2007 by Conspiriology]

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 11:01 AM
this may be easier to digest if we do not look at 911 in terms of countries.

The forces behind the events of 911 are not affiliated with nationalistic boundaries.

Intelligence operations are compartmentalized by design. Everything is done on a need to know basis. The CIA invented this process and the whole "terror cell" concept is their creation.

The Mossad does not have a members list. What makes Mossad intelligence so valuable is the fact that they are all seperate freelancing stringers.

That is why it is possible to have some members of the CIA and Mossad(british intelligence,ect) directly involved with an operation(911) and still have other members of the Cia,Mossad warning the USA about the same operation.

The higher level of elected officials who may had some knowledge(Bush,Blair) or were directly active(Cheney) have multiple layers of "plausible deniability"

The "who done it" part of the equation is not as important as the why.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:14 PM

When Bush said on national television after seeing the first plane hit (something of an impossibility at the time he says he saw it) he tells the audience " my first thoughts were mmm must have been pilot error"

That sure isn't what I thought,, and no I don't believe him.

If I remember right, Bush said he saw that before it had even happened. He claimed he saw it some time before he met the kids to read with them, some 20 minutes before the plane hit.

You're on the money about acting, this isn't something I see get mentioned a lot, maybe older members who have been around a bit longer and met a few liars would notice this better. But Bush's face after getting the whisper in the ear is very interesting. I don't need to say more than that for anyone who knows what I'm talking about.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:25 PM
reply to post by NWRHINO

I disagree for it is NOT important who did it why they did it until we know HOW it was done first.

How it was done is what remains the central issue of this tragic event and the area I and many others want investigated for as long as we continue to "settle" for the "official story" that the terrorists did this, we will be chasing an invisible enemy on a treadmill to nowhere.

That the official explanation of HOW it was done substantiates the WHY it was done. If you think I am going to believe the official reason it was done being that they hate us because of our freedom?? Sorry that dog won't hunt.

Why anyone would do it is an area of psychosis Ill NEVER understand and I'm not sure I would want to moreover the question itself gives meaning to what justifies doing it and frankly, I couldn't care less what "excuse" any one has for doing because they're isn't one good enough but are many I could understand.

I understand anger, greed, revenge etc. Those are well established as motive but my being free is just crap.

Ther may be one good enough for the perpetrators, I'd say fine they can tell us all about it after they are brought to justice.

Like any forensic investigation, finding out HOW it was done will invariably lead to WHO did it then the WHY if you are still curious, is the answer we will be left with as the only part of this I and many others will never understand.

The HOW is easy to mask and has been quite well and continues to be a conspiracy of sorts having a life of it's own for example:

The divisiveness that is perpetuating such issues is astounding and I'm not just talking the Corporate and Government level. Their have been grass roots movements with a bent on obfuscating and / or creating mis-information with the soul purpose of destroying the credibility of anyone with any loyalty to any other standard of truth other then the NIST report. I have been mistakenly invited to large groups asked to join forums with the purpose of making up wild incredulous theories in an order to cast aspersions on other theorists as whacked out conspiracy theorists or "Twoofers" a name they have dubbed the 911 truth movement.

They have been quite effective with that strategy to the point where a truther today is so timid in admitting his or her beliefs they attempt to hide the fact that they just don't buy the NISTIAN GOSPEL. The problem is this is counter productive in getting to a real debate on the topic. Seeking the approval of any clique that seems to have the upper hand by majority membership is folly in my view. This has gotten to the point where their is a distinct stereotype that has been formed. Meaning that if you are a truther then you must also be stupid because they believe in the "truth fairy". You must also be a believer in God which isn't scientific enough for most anyone with REAL intelligence. Well truth be told,,(no pun) NOT everyone in the truth movement is a GOD fearing church going tithe giving zealot. Not all of them are for Gun Control something I totally DISAGREE with Rosie O'Dumbell err,, O'Donnel about. Also the idea you must be liberal or a Democrat and a lover of pseudo science such as intelligent design etc. if you are of the truth movement, It gets pretty hostile as anyone who is a truther and member of the skeptics for pseudo intellects called JREF forum will attest.

Their are many such online forums with such heated debates but none with the extraordinary pomp, verbal gymnastics and intellectual snobbery as the James Randi Education Foundation. The Founder himself once a charlatan claims to be on a mission to debunk Sylvia brown as a fraud.

Now I ask you,, is this really important and who really cares?

I have watched her on Montel Williams and although I agree I don't believe she sees dead people, I don't think I have a prayer to convince those that listen to lies they DESPERATELY want to believe that she is a fraud let alone a liar.

I simply have better things to do and I would think someone with Randi's so called superior intellect would also.

Does anyone REALLY think for one second that if James Randi were to debunk Sylvia Brown proving unequivocally absolutely she is a fraud, that it would change ruin her career as regular on Montel? No more then any Jref Debunker is going to change the doubts I or any other cynic has about the efficacy of Government supported and or endorsed 911 investigations.

Now "NWRHINO" here is where we totally agree and that is on the basis of whay the military, CIA, FBI and many other Government Covert Ops use as "Need to know" it is the basis for all covert ops. I have seen it used in the military and not only is it effective but it is EASY to accomplish with extraordinary success. Ill use James Randi in my example, below:

Asking Randi to debunk the box cutter cartoon while he has a group of followers not unlike L. Ron Hubbard did with Scientology. As a matter of fact thats who JREF debunkers remind me of. They even have their own vernacular their own Bible (NIST) and their own brand of arrogance. Who needs the government to start a conspiracy to shut down all those still asking legitimate questions when they can ask someone like Randi to step in and lo and behold,, we got a entire movement of haters who think they are smarter then everyone else doing all they can to break us down and cast us as crack pots. Are they part of a conspiracy of sorts?


Do they know it

Hell no.

That is why they don't think any large group of people can all be involved in a conspiracy without knowing simply because they don't think it's possible. In the meantime they do all they can to keep the one that did this from ever seeing the light of day.

The Government hates CT's because every once in a while

They are right.


Ill say this much for Randi,, had he ALL the forensic evidence at his disposal before it all went down the garbage disposal,,

I am certain his questions would not be satisfied.

But what of our questions?

Well take a look at the recent news

With the help of Lawyers, lobbyists and Politicians who are less then honorable, they have BROKEN the back of our two party system. I have said this before and Ill say it again. I think the American Idol show could come up with a better format for finding the next Great American President then the system we have now.

We have politicians who think HONORABLE is who they are as long as it is stamped on there stationery letterhead. They take bribes as long as it is re-named "lobby".

I watch them carefully articulate their accomplishments speaking in the most delicate way they can how it was they that made this crime bill or " I " that created the change for America while not looking like they are tooting their own horn. You know what I do when ever they say that kind of thing? I go right to the website and check and invariably I find they are full of crap. If I were there when they said such lies I would without haste, challenge such statements. Then I am certain I would be summarily "tazed" with 50,000 volts of electricity coursing through my body like that young journalism student that said "don't taze me bro" when asking John Kerry about his involvement with a secret society known as "skull and bones". I ask you what in GODS NAME was he asking that for? More importantly WHY if it was just a dumb thing to ask did they electrocute the guy?

Yeah get a clue.

We aren't to ask the tough questions unless prior consent and arrangements are made with a Senator first, giving them time to rehearse an answer.

That is how Hillary Clinton does it.

Apparently, John Kerry does too and as for dumb questions,, it is my belief that the ONLY dumb question is the one that goes UN-ASKED but was it Necessary to taze that young man whether you think his question was relevant, stupid or not? Even when Kerry told them he would answer it they wouldn't allow him to.

Could it be an addition to that axiom about un asked questions has an unsaid warning like,

The only scary question, is the one they refuse to answer?


The now famous phrase seen on everything from tee shirts to coffee mugs has had it's share of detractors saying he deserved it because he wouldn't come along quietly. My question is,, come along for what? what did he do?

Watch the video and you'll see as he asks the question Kerry's security starts putting there hands on the guy and he naturally trys to shrug them off. He is there asking a question like everyone else. He is a VOTER and someone that could stand out side with anyone of us and the sun would shine on both of us. His reluctance to have his question interupted by being "handled" is something I can't hold against him. I know I'd have done the same thing.

However if I had known before I asked it that I may be tazed or for that matter man handled in anyway for simply asking a question they for "some" reason, didn't like,, then, I wouldn't have.

That's just the problem,, WE DON'T KNOW and it seems that's just where they want to keep us.

I will agree the guy was extremely obnoxious to the point where he should have been removed but AFTER he has handcuffs on and is technically been "incarcerated" that is to say his freedom of movement had been arrested, THEY TAZED HIM AGAIN!

Kerry should have INSISTED he answer that question, instead, all he accomplished is pique a national interest in finding out just what was it they are trying to hide. I have read about skull and bones and wrote it off as not that important. Now however I think I may have been premature in my assessment and will do reading on snopes to get the truth. Thank GOD for snopes and other websites like it.

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the superfluous use of the word "Al-Qaeda" or even "terrorist" for that matter. You remember the Sunni's and shia the insurgents we were fighting in Iraq? Doesn't it cock your head funny whenever questions regarding leaving Iraq suddenly renames these tribes to Al-Qaeda? . They are insurgents when we are there talking about the ground troops but whenever the talk turns to leaving there they are summarily renamed from insurgents to "terrorists" .

We are told time over that the Government couldn't have had ANYTHING at all to do with 911 but they have everything to do with promoting it as a pretext for every single one of our rights as Americans that have been stripped away in the name of "National Security" and it is BUNK. Hell with our borders leaking like a sieve and it making international news, you'd think the Terrorist being mostly of Arab descent would simply pose as Mexicans and sneak across the border like the multitudes that do and blend right in as merely illegal aliens?

You would think our Politicians so quick to use that logic as a reason to install new language in our constitution for making it legal to spy on us would be the same logic used to stem the tide of illegal immigration but it isn't.

Not that it hasn't occurred to them or the terrorists but it sure makes the arguments they have for telling us how safe we are since they are in office a crock.

In addition to that they know that it conflicts with the agenda they have with the north American union erasing the borders of Canada and Mexico. Now here is the kicker,, the motivation Bush has said is behind the North American union is National Security!

Is your head spinning like a cartoon?

It should be.

WTC 7 the 50 story building that wasn't touched by an airplane and by the 911 commissions own account, "imploded" falling at free fall speed in a nice neat pile on it's own foundations footprint stands as the quintessential reasoning for re-opening the case. It has been over 6 years and the Government has postponed the Building 7 report three times. NIST recently had this admission one where I am sure Rosie O'Donnell Jumped for Joy as it is certainly one time she can tell everyone of her detractors,,

"I told ya so"

"NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable"

Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed"

What I still don't understand is those who have said Bush had nothing to do with it using his stupidity as a rationale for it's implausibility I can agree with one caveat.

That as much as I agree with the assessment Bush isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer,, if that's the reason he couldn't have, then how could 13 idiots with nothing but box cutters, less then adequate skill flying a Cessna let alone a 727 commercial jet airplane with a ring leader who is hiding in a cave somewhere,,,,

pulled off the biggest crime of the century?

Oh and please,, don't taze me bro,,

I'm just asking a question.

- Love Con

[edit on 9-12-2007 by Conspiriology]

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by unnamedninja

Yep you seen it too.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:36 PM
reply to post by NWRHINO

You bring up an excellent point about "need to know." The firemen and police officers on the street who were trying to get people out of the way for WTC-7 to be "brought down" had no idea that their knowledge or statements would become a critical piece of conspiracy evidence. Yet they were acting as agents of the conspiracy themselves, albeit on the very lowest level.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:38 PM
reply to post by Conspiriology

Fantastic post. I highly recommend that anyone who has not seen it already, take the few minutes to watch the Italian broadcast with the YouTube link provided. I have never heard that explosion before!

Click here to watch!

[edit on 12/9/0707 by jackinthebox]

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 02:00 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox


posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 02:39 PM
I distinctly remember the call to "pull" WTC-7, on the day that it happened. I presumed that the building was so badly damaged that it needed to be brought down before it fell down.

Of course, we see in the footage that the building was not critically damaged, and therefore did not need to be "pulled." The only reason then to bring it down would be to simply clear the entire scene for total reconstruction. This would mean that someone was already planning the rebuilding of the WTC in its entirety, or its resale at the very least. (Of course this would tie in directly with the insurance as well.) Was this a "Jewish lightning" scheme? (((Please note that I am not endorsing the theory of a Zionist 9/11 plot with the afforementioned phrase. This term is commonly used in NY for a scheme, that is often used by the Mafia, slumlords and various other real-estate owners or business owners, in which the property is intentionally destroyed with full knowledge by the owner for the purpose of defrauding their insurance company. Furthermore, I am not anti-Semitic personally.)))

If the building was already on the verge of collapse, one or two charges might be enough to finish it off. However, the controlled demolition of an intact building requires extensive planning and logisitcs. It would have been impossible to do within a few hours, and therefore proves there must have been previous knowledge that the attacks of 9/11 would indeed occur.

I personally spoke with a NYState engineer who went over the collapse of towers 1 and 2 with me. He showed clearly how they may have indeed collapsed without the assistance of demolition explosives. This was based on the building design and center column structure. They were a sort of "tension-structure" like a vertical suspension bridge if you will. A critical failure in one part, could indeed lead to the failure of the entire structure. However, this explanation cannot be used for WTC-7.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 06:10 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox

I have not seen any thing on the order to "pull it" and other then the Larry silverstein videos where the argument again is so divisive whether he meant pull the fireman back or pull the building down.

If you don't intend to make any suggestions i.e.; Zionist, Muslims then don't mention them. I don't subscribe to any particular theory at all regarding who did it, I can only speculate but every investigation has its suspects and like I mentioned in the post about the president commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby, that NO ONE is above the law. It's interesting to note that NOT a bit if investigative journalism have I seen where Larry Silverstein has been asked to elaborate on his statement to pull it.

If their has been and I missed it, conventional wisdom dictates two questions remain whether his answer were to pull fireman back or to pull it down.

1) if it were to pull everyone back and these fireman were making these preparations as early as noon time in eye witness testimony then what in gods name brought it down and how did they know

2) According to the controlled demolitions own website, a building that size takes weeks even months to complete the meticulous highly technical preparations by a team of experts. To bring about the synchronous harmony of explosions each occurring at critically key moments all having entirely different effects that will conclude in a massive implosion such as you see in lockstep side by side videos of each other.

Either I am to believe, they had planned to do this and just by some cosmic coincidence it just so happens to be on the same day 2 other steal framed buildings collapse setting the record not to mention precedent for buildings of that type to be brought down that day.


That we have evidently discovered a new technique to demolish building structures made of steel using only office fires or fuel fires. No team of experts no harmonious synchronicity no months of meticulous preparation?

I mean it could have been a fluke right?



Help me with


posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Conspiriology
reply to post by jackinthebox

If you don't intend to make any suggestions i.e.; Zionist, Muslims then don't mention them.

Perhaps you misunderstood my in-post disclaimer. The term "Jewish Lightning" was used to describe a known criminal practice, and I did not want it to be confused with the theory that 9/11 was a Jewish plot.

Even if the destruction of the WTC was a plot by Jews, it was not a Jewish plot. Furthermore, I think the scope and complexity of the 9/11 conspiracy makes it impossible for any single group of people to be blamed exclusively. As much as I would like to blame Bush personally, even he is just another cog.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 06:29 PM
Even if towers one and two fell as the result of damage sustained in the attacks, I do not believe that tower 7 did. It was of entirely different design, displayed no severe damage, and was reported to have fallen before it actually did. (Not to mention the distinct sound of explosives being detonated when it did come down.)

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 06:29 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox

I stand corrected, my apologies

Yes I understand. The reason I point out Bush is the tragedy so profoundly fits with his agenda and as history shows, everything he has done he had motive to do. From Sadam trying to kill his dad to that entire mess in Iraq. That is in addition to that smirk on his face the moment he was "Informed"

[edit on 9-12-2007 by Conspiriology]

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 06:55 PM
reply to post by Conspiriology

The scary part is Bush is "the Diet Coke of Evil, just one calorie."

Seriously though, I am really worried about who takes over next. As bad as he is, I just really get the impression that he's only setting the stage for the anti-Christ or something.

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 12:30 AM
More insiders will speak up as soon as the neocons lose more power and control.

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in