It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(SBU) Judge Garzon is considered a critical threat
profile Judge due to his on-going oversight and involvement
in highly-visible terrorism cases including the September 11,
2001 Trade Tower bombings as connected to the Moroccan
Al-Qaida cell known as the Barakat Yarkas group.
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Exuberant1
So we are playing semantics games?
Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by Exuberant1
Grasping at strings, are we?
Wikileaks, while releasing cables that indicate real conspiracies that need to be ridiculed and scorned by the American people/citizens of the world, has released nothing that indicates a conspiracy on 9/11. Because of this, most truthers are claiming that Assange and wikileaks are somehow involved, or that they are members of the NWO, or puppets for Mossad, or, heaven forbid, JEWISH!!!
Or they grasp at strings, as you have done here.
eta. more important, in thos cable, why is the judge overseeing 9/11 cases considered a threat?
Originally posted by thecinic
So what were the airplanes used for, you can not deny that 2 planes slammed into the wtc...
You can call it whatever you want.
If a plane crashed, it is being said it crashed because it was a accident....
While the planes did smash into the wtc it was not an accident, the planes were used as a huge jet fuel bombs.
Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Myendica
eta. more important, in thos cable, why is the judge overseeing 9/11 cases considered a threat?
" Judge Garzon is considered a critical 'Threat-Profile' judge ..."
He is not considered a threat . He is considered a critical "Threat-Profile" judge .
See how that works ?edit on 13-12-2010 by okbmd because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Exuberant1
I thought that calling something a 'bombing' implied a bomb was used. We cannot just pretend otherwise, right?
....Maybe the rules are different when discussing 9/11?