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.

 

Bush Insider Says 911 Was An Inside Job

page: 7
213
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
The thread title misled me, and I want meh minutez back. While I am glad that scholarly individuals are joining the truth movement because they add more credibility to the organization, however I thought, because of the thread title, that this guy was going to have first-hand knowledge of a coverup. But just now I was thinking, and I highly doubt that anyone who was truly in "the know" about 9/11 is going to talk...and the ones who may have are probably not with us anymore, because this is a very heavy situation, and I know the perpetrators would have covered their tracks.

I would like to share some quotes made by former President bush...

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th." --Washington, D.C., July 12, 2007

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

And my favorite...

"Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." --in parting words to world leaders at his final G-8 Summit, punching the air and grinning widely as those present looked on in shock, Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by rigel4
 

Phillip D. Zelikow


It's compelling stuff isn't it? I'm somewhere in between as to him being a bender of history, rather he understands when history is being bent. In the 1993 case he wrote the 2001 event in around 1997/98 as he saw it based on the 1993 near event. The fact it became a reality a few years later does not take away from his observations, and he did write on other historical events in a similar vein. It's difficult then, to see him talking publicly about an up and coming event that actually happens, if that event was already planned. On the other hand he was also advisor to Ms Rice. At the same time hollywood was hemorrhaging with the same scenario movies, like Die hard 3, 1995 with it's hidden agenda, and other movies with direct references. I know in more mudane aspects of modern, say urban history, the likes of Wiki, and books are used routinely to alter and colour the real events, small stuff and at most it just makes you curse a little, but 9/11 and related events have become life changing in the best Zelikow tradition for all of us, and we all should question every little event and nuance that led up to 9/11, not just that it happened. In regard to people speaking out in retrospect, and or whistleblowing, I think we all should bear in mind that those people have to be cautious in what they say directly, consider only that they are sending a signal for us to take on board, not an instant Big Mac'
edit on 7-6-2011 by smurfy because: Add text.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 

One thing is for certain. You will not find me playing the role of apologist for that creep.

And to me it's obvious that he was involved in the policy formation which led to the false flag event itself, put the finishing touches on it, for the coup de gras as the icing on the cake, an imagined nightmarish "vision" of a future event probably first written of in Paul Wolfowitz's thesis at the University of Chigaco (find interviews with Bob Dole's ex Chief of Staff, Stanley Hilton, who went to school with "those guys"). It had been cooking for some time the "New Pearl Harbor" "catastrophic and catalyzing event", and Zelikow was like one of the head chefs in the kitchen, there can be no doubt about it.

Also note how Zelikow's language for it also wound up in the PNAC Document

Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
A Report of the Project for the New American Century
September 2000

www.newamericancentury.org...

A "catastrophic and catalyzing event" - that's Zelikow language, championed, in his prior paper

Catastrophic Terrorism:
Elements of a National Policy

www.hks.harvard.edu...

"Elements of a National Policy"...

A policy which could only be brought to fruition by the "catastrophic and catalyzing event" the "new Pearl Harbor" itself..!

This was all in the years leading up to 9/11 of course, through the invitation, and training, of the Saudi patsies needed for the false flag event, and their tracking via a program called "Able Danger" (another appropriate use of language pointing to the secret intent of the program). At least one of them lived with a known FBI informant, yada yada yada, it goes on and on, the evidence of insider knowledge and conspiracy.

oh sigh...

And when you "reverse engineer" the history of the build up to Bush/Cheney's Iraq War, same thing again - 9/11 anticipated, in advance, and again, same thing in Afghanistan, prior to, as if the PTB KNEW, well in advance, that all the ducks were lining up in a row.

Future historians worth their salt, will not record the OCT MYTH as history, for God's sake and that of free people everywhere they will not. It's plainly obvious what's gone down here, the writing, is on the wall.


For some perspective, this documentary video series is worth watching imo.



Another establishment forger of the policy which generated the false flag event of 9/11 was

Zbigniew Brzezinski, which was laid out in his book

"The Grand Chessboard"
www.wanttoknow.info...

Richard Pearl - another one, who led an Israeli think tank "study group" which authored a paper called
A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
www.iasps.org...

"elements" of which appear to have sprung into the later PNAC document under the aegis of an Israeli cadre of Bush officials, like Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, Zakheim, etc.

Why did the twin towers have to come down? Mostly for the "shock and awe" (a term coined by Rumsfeld) global psy-op HORROR!

For those who will, I encourage you to check out 9/11blogger.com and get active in the 9/11 truth movement (as the movement of the truth about 9/11), as we still need to get another THIRD of the population to shift the tide of history, armed with nothing more or less than the truth and reality itself.


edit on 7-6-2011 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by smurfy
 

One thing is for certain. You will not find me playing the role of apologist for that creep.

And to me it's obvious that he was involved in the policy formation which led to the false flag event itself, put the finishing touches on it, for the coup de gras as the icing on the cake, a "vision" of a future event probably first written of in Paul Wolfowitz's thesis at the University of Chigaco (find interviews with Bob Dole's ex Chief of Staff Stanley Hilton who went to school with "those guys". It had been cooking for some time the "New Pearl Harbor" catastrophic and catalyzing event, and Zelikow was like one of the chefs in the kitchen.

Also note how Zelikow's language for it also wound up in the PNAC Document

Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
A Report of the Project for the New American Century
September 2000

www.newamericancentury.org...

A "catastrophic and catalyzing event" - that's Zelikow language, championed, in his prior paper

Catastrophic Terrorism:
Elements of a National Policy

www.hks.harvard.edu...

"Elements of a National Policy"...

A policy which could only be brought to fruition by the "catastrophic and catalyzing event" the "new Pearl Harbor" itself...

This was all in the years leading up to 9/11 of course, through the invitation, and training of the Saudi patsies, and their tracking via a program called "Able Danger" (another appropriate use of language pointing to the secret intent of the program).

oh sigh...




edit on 7-6-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)


I agree with you,
But what I am saying is that why publish that 1998 study as a 'study' in advance? in other words the actual scenario was not really a study but was common knowledge in some grouping/s most likely in the US, which is really what you are saying. In other words, it was a known event and was going to happen, so there has to be meat on the table a long time before. Then there is the direct questions as to who benefits in the aftermath, from one level to the next.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
The conspiracy was that no flight trainer told the FBI that a group of students wasn't interested in learning how to land the plane.

Authorities let this group that was listed on a watch list fly together that day.

NORAD trained for the possibility of a plane attack on the world trade center just weeks before.

..and many other examples such as this.

My conclusion is that our government and military complex knew there was to be a new attack on the world trade center but let it happen to serve as an excuse to take Iraq and go into Iran.

It is an absolute fact that our government and military could not have planned this and directed it intentionally. They are too disorganized and many whistles would have been blown.
edit on 7-6-2011 by ren1999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 

It was like an upgrade for the 21st century of Operation Northwoods

www.gwu.edu...

But like I said, some people like Paul Wolfowitz wrote a thesis about something similar when he was at school at the University of Chicago, where much of the type of thinking in back of these ideas was first hatched and that was a longgg time ago. It's nothing new, the idea of a false flag terrorist event to "take over the world" or in the case of Northwoods as a pretext for an invasion of Cuba ie: to wage war.

But it needs to be honed and reworded by the most recent and relevant political ruling elite who are coming to power, to forge policy as "elements of a national policy", that's why.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ren1999
 


Originally posted by ren1999
It is an absolute fact that our government and military could not have planned this and directed it intentionally. They are too disorganized and many whistles would have been blown.

The hard physical reality of the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 proves otherwise, same thing with a plane impacting that particular section of the Pentagon where there's no way that Hani Hanjour was at the helm, and how did it get to the Pentagon with Cheney tracking it much of the way...?

No it was a highly orchestrated military industrial and intelligence apparatus false flag operation, no other conclusion can be drawn in the face of the evidence.

It must have been extremely complex, and highly comparmentalized, with complicity at many levels, either knowingly or unwittingly.


edit on 7-6-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
The interviewee, Morgan O Reynolds, mentions a book entitled "911 A New Pearl Harbor".

Here's a link to the book.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by smurfy
 

It was like an upgrade for the 21st century of Operation Northwoods

www.gwu.edu...

But like I said, some people like Paul Wolfowitz wrote a thesis about something similar when he was at school at the University of Chicago, where much of the type of thinking in back of these ideas was first hatched and that was a longgg time ago. It's nothing new, the idea of a false flag terrorist event to "take over the world" or in the case of Northwoods as a pretext for an invasion of Cuba ie: to wage war.

But it needs to be honed and reworded by the most recent and relevant political ruling elite who are coming to power, to forge policy as "elements of a national policy", that's why.


I know about this stuff, but I dare to say it, an 'agenda' goes back a lot longer. The BBC film is a bit singular, since it is one man's experience and perception, which in itself is individualistic, and when you consider that McCarthyism, and apartheid were the norm in the US in that era, it is not really about the rigours or otherwise of being an individual for the subject matter, just another form of control, and is of course now historical. That's where we are now, back in the 50's. The one thing that is true from the BBC film, without really saying it, is that politics and all its engineering is the new God and must be obeyed. A bit like the old God really.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 





Obama must actually be up to speed and cooperative and ok with a covert agenda since from the get go HE promised NOT to investigate or hold the guilty accountable. For me along with the inexplicable and late breaking collapse of tower 7, this and similar video showing GWB determined this was suspicious to me.


That ticks me off more than anything about Obama! When he ran for office, he talked about transparency in government and I thought for sure he would have opened up a new investigation into 9/11. For him to take the investigation into 9/11 off the table he has to be complicit with the secret agenda our government is trying to hide. Even Nancy Pelosi said any investigation of 9/11 was off the table!

Something doesn't sit right with me and I'm sure a lot of other Americans. If a democrat was president at the time of 9/11, you know an incoming Republican administration would have demanded a new investigation. Both parties love to jump on anything that would put the other party against the ropes. Since when do any of these members care about how much money they spend on an investigation.

The question is, why don't we hear about any members of congress demanding a new investigation into 9/11. It's hard to believe among the 535 members of congress, we don't have at least a small group voicing a need to re-investigate the evidence. Polls have shown that 1/3 of Americans don't believe the OS. So the way I look at it, if the members of congress make up a cross section of their constituents there should be approximately 178 members that feel the same way.

For the republicans to pull out all the stops to investigate Clinton, surely the worst attack on American soil at the least deserves a second look! Now we'll have an investigation on Wiener which we already know he's been caught lying.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So what makes a "Bush insider" a credible witness vs a crackpot in your view, exactly?


When did I ever say this man is credible? You must be experiencing dilusions of grandure again from your "damn fool government websites".



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Just like this thread anyone who disagrees with a forum moderator (you) gets a t&c and their post removed, in my opinion a form of blacklisting.
Your post is easily the worst i have read by an ATS mod, and why it received crytical responses by multiple posters.
I was in no way flippantly using the term troll and totally disagree with my post being removed. I didnt think our mods were that sensitive.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Great Post Alien.Here's one Orchard connection.Pretty offtopic maybe, but thanks homieees,it's Wonderful world of "freedom of expressions"


Beyond 911




Illuminati Occultism - Death of Osama bin Laden (May 1st 2011)






edit on 7-6-2011 by solid007 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2011 by solid007 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2011 by solid007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
his first day on the job was 9/4/01 !!!

bush insider ?

LOL


yeah and?? Was there a point to your pointless post? Did you adress any of the points brought up? You exhibit all the hallmarks of a troll. trying to incite a pointless issue. lucky most people on here can see through it for what it is andyour opinion and reputation on here is worthless as a result. so keep up the good work. your proving our point. its beyond obvious that 911 was staged.

regardless how many crazy theories that pop up to distract from the basics all you have yo do is use your eyes. the buildings did not fall a result of fire. building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition as was the twin tower.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


The CFR has been involved in the NWO for decades. Carter was a Tri-lateralist which TRC was just another incarnation of CFR. If you look at the last election, only Kucinich and Paul were not members of CFR. Every Sec of Defense since Eisenhower has been CFR. Why do you think Eisenhower talked about the Military industrial complex? He knew the CFR was running things behind the scenes. I hear people saying that anyone can join the CFR, even an actress like Angelina Jolie can, because of her ambassadorship of the UN. But I am sure that the inner core is who knows whats really going on, just like only the 33rd degree Masons know certain things the outer membership does not.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Wow. I'm shocked.
I thought the Govt.was incapable of lies.
color me Surprised.
(end sarcasm)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Mr. Reynolds states, "I saw black smoke billowing out of a tower on television and pointed at it while stating, that building will not fall." That's an extremely odd thing to say at that time. Who in their right mind would even make that comment or even mention a collapse due to an oxygen starved fire in the North Tower?

But then again, we're talking about an Economist = Scum of the Earth. Conclusion: disinfo agent all the way (and a very bad one at that). I'm sure this guy would get along with a lot of the "career debunkers" on this site.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
What if i was to tell you the orchestraters of 911 wanted you to believe the Bush admin orchestrated 911. What if i was to tell you there is alot of truth to tv shows like 'The Event' and 'Flash Forward'

It would be hard to swallow wouldn't it? Most 911 conspiracy theorists cant make it past the belief the 2 towers were brought down by convential demolition means. They were not.

Doesn't matter to me what you believe now....the timeline has been changed. Reason i love the jews in Hollywood,,,they are at least trying to be honest with you...you simply refuse to listen.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by superluminal11
 


I can't speak for the rest of the forum but im all eyes. please elaborate in your hypothesis. or pm me.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
No, it is a fact that the government had no active involvement. I was the government. I know.



new topics

top topics



 
213
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join