Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Was the government a co-conspirator?

page: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 




Okay. Here's exactly where you're going wrong. I'll do this very slowly. What you've posted above evidences a series of links between Saudi Arabia and and the Bush family, amongst others. It does not evidence involvement in 9/11 by either party. For some reason you think it does. You are wrong. In order to imagine that it does, you have to make a leap of faith that is not contained in the extracts you use above. Imagine, for example, me trying to suggest you killed a guy because your dad met his uncle and your brother invested in his golf course. You might be pretty annoyed if you went down on that evidence alone. You also seem uncritical of your evidence. The Carlyle Group meeting had over 500 people at it. But your source characterises it as a "business meeting" between Bush Sr and Bin Laden's brother. There is no evidence that they actually spoke to each other. Bin Laden also had something like 50 siblings. The fact that you take this source so uncritically answers the question of why you are so easily led with regard to conspiracy theories, I guess.

It does not evidence involvement in 9/11 by either party because they are covering it up, and don’t let this being really looked into.
Don t you understand that if people cover up their activities it's because that the truth would hurt them in someway? It's illegal for the government to cover things up. *****NIXON **** ring a bell?




posted on May, 14 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 



It does not evidence involvement in 9/11 by either party because they are covering it up, and don’t let this being really looked into.

Or, option "B", there is no cover up and there is no involvement. But with "Option B" there's no conspiracy and there's nothing interesting.

Don t you understand that if people cover up their activities it's because that the truth would hurt them in someway?

Do you understand that sometime when there is no evidence of a crime its because there's no crime?

It's illegal for the government to cover things up. *****NIXON **** ring a bell?

So the existence of one criminal act proves all accusations?



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





Or, option "B", there is no cover up and there is no involvement. But with "Option B" there's no conspiracy and there's nothing interesting.


That option has been eliminated.



Do you understand that sometime when there is no evidence of a crime its because there's no crime?


Yes I do. But in this case there are indications of a cover up.



So the existence of one criminal act proves all accusations?


No It doesn’t prove anything, but it backs up my statement that an intentional cover up by the government is a crime.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 



That option has been eliminated.

Don't be so passive. YOU eliminated that object in YOUR own mind because it makes the world so less interesting.

Yes I do. But in this case there are indications of a cover up.

Indications? Can you be a little more vague?

No It doesn’t prove anything, but it backs up my statement that an intentional cover up by the government is a crime.

No, "cover ups" are not necessarily crimes. "Covering up" the names of our spies is not a crime. Covering up our miltitary projects is not a crime.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Covering up is okay, is what you are saying and only ones who are guilty are the Islamic terrorist who the government claims are responsible and that there is no crime, if it is covered up and no accomplices, since there was not ever a crime, to link anyone else to, if all the evidence is overlooked, or concealed, so no sense in ever or even thinking was a coverup, Oswald was a lone gunman and the yellow brick road was not just a road in Oz, it was a song by Elton John, so there, all this conspiracy talk is nonsense and there is no such thing, as a conspiracy, to just look at the official story, accept and move a long and don't question the government, as they do not and would not ever lie to you or anyone else, and quit being so paranoid, because you are doing more harm than good and that is disrespectful and only makes it worse...

destroying evidence is fine and tampering with an investigation, covering up is not a crime, nor is committing it, if you get a way with and can blame it one someone else and building 7 just fell by the forces of nature and that is just how it is, accept and move on, nothing here to see, go back to drinking the kool aid please
edit on 14-5-2012 by earthinhabitant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 




Don't be so passive. YOU eliminated that object in YOUR own mind because it makes the world so less interesting.


Nope not in my head. But in his





Indications? Can you be a little more vague?

Vague?
Refer to the video above, not vague at all.



No, "cover ups" are not necessarily crimes. "Covering up" the names of our spies is not a crime. Covering up our miltitary projects is not a crime.


True, but it's not what we are talking about, is it?



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 




No, "cover ups" are not necessarily crimes. "Covering up" the names of our spies is not a crime. Covering up our miltitary projects is not a crime


Oh my god, you are saying that 9/11 was a military operation involving our spies whose identities must be covered up.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


not only that, more damning evidence that demonstrates and confirms the majority of truthers claims...further proof that it was and was not, as anyone in denial only needs review the fats to know and those who deny after reviewing and still like to try the plausibly denial card, really are suggesting we are ignorant and we got to look at the motto, as a defense here, and say, DENIED



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
hello people i am new here but maybe this can sheed some light on this matter for you i dont know if you guy's and girl's have seen this but i am going to post it for you sence i found it in my research i am a sovereign and part of the republic for the united states of amarica so i beleave in shareing thing's i find with good people


George W Bush Authorized 911 Attacks Says Government Insider
Transcript of Radio Interview with Stanley Hilton

by Alex Jones

Global Research .., May 23, 2008
Pakistan Daily
..
- 2008-05-20

/Email this article to a friend/

/Print this article/

.r{}*
/

/Keep in mind when reading this, that the man being interviewed is no
two-bit internet conspiracy buff./

/Stanley Hilton was a senior advisor to Sen Bob Dole (R) and has
personally known Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for decades. This courageous man
has risked his professional reputation, and possibly his life, to get
this information out to people. /

//
/The following is from his latest visit to Alex Jones' radio show. /

//
/Note: All honor to Stanley Hilton for risking his life so that we may
know the truth of 9/11. /

//
/The Bush Junta Unmasked /

//
/"This (9/11) was all planned. This was a government-ordered operation.
Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks.
He is guilty of treason and mass murder." --Stanley Hilton /

//
*Alex Jones interview of Stanley Hilton, attorney for 911 taxpayers'
lawsuit*

AJ: He is back with us. He is former Bob Dole's chief of staff, very
successful counselor, lawyer. He represents hundreds of the victims
families of 9/11. He is suing Bush for involvement in 9/11. Now a major
Zogby poll out - half of New Yorkers think the government was involved
in 9/11. And joining us for the next 35 minutes, into the next hour, is
Stanley Hilton. Stanley, it's great to have you on with us.

SH: Glad to be on.

AJ: We'll have to recap this when we start the next hour, but just in a
nutshell, you have a lawsuit going, you've deposed a lot of military
officers. You know the truth of 9/11. Just in a nutshell, what is your
case alleging?

SH: Our case is alleging that Bush and his puppets Rice and Cheney and
Mueller and Rumsfeld and so forth, Tenet, were all involved not only in
aiding and abetting and allowing 9/11 to happen but in actually ordering
it to happen. Bush personally ordered it to happen. We have some very
incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush personally
ordered this event to happen in order to gain political advantage, to
pursue a bogus political agenda on behalf of the neocons and their
deluded thinking in the Middle East. I also wanted to point out that,
just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons. At the
University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and
several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used
to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on
this very subject - how to turn the U.S. into a presidential
dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So,
technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years.

AJ: That's right. They were all Straussian followers of a Nazi-like
professor. And now they are setting it up here in America. Stanley, I
know you deposed a lot of people and you've got your $7 million dollar
lawsuit with hundreds of the victim's families involved.

SH: 7 billion, 7 billion

AJ: Yeah, 7 billion. Can you go over some of the new and incriminating
evidence you've got of them ordering the attack?

SH: Yes, let me just say that this is a taxpayers' class action lawsuit
as well as a suit on behalf of the families and the basic three
arguments are they violated the Constitution by ordering this event. And
secondly that they [garbled] fraudulent Federal Claims Act, Title 31 of
the U.S. Code in which Bush presented false and fraudulent evidence to
Congress to get the Iraq war authorization. And, of course, he related
it to 9/11 and claimed that Saddam was involved with that, and all these
lies.

AJ: Tell you what, stay there. Stanley, we've got to break. Let's come
back and get into the evidence. BREAK

AJ: All right my friends, second hour, the anniversary of the globalist
attack coming up. It's an amazing individual we have on the line. Bob
Dole's former chief of staff, political scientist, a lawyer, he went to
school with Rumsfeld and others, he wrote his thesis about how to turn
America into a dictatorship using a fake Pearl Harbor attack. He's suing
the U.S. government for carrying out 9/11. He has hundreds of the
victims' families signing onto it - it's a $7 billion lawsuit. And he is
Stanley Hilton. I know that a lot of stations just joined us in Los
Angeles and Rhode Island and Missouri and Florida and all over. Please
sir, recap what you were just stating and then let's get into the new
evidence. And then we'll get into why you are being harassed by the FBI,
as other FBI people are being harassed who have been blowing the whistle
on this. So, this is really getting serious. Stanley, tell us all about it.

SH: Yeah, we are suing Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Mueller, etc. for complicity in personally not only allowing 9/11 to
happen but in ordering it. The hijackers we retained and we had a
witness who is married to one of them. The hijackers were U.S.
undercover agents. They were double agents, paid by the FBI and the CIA
to spy on Arab groups in this country. They were controlled. Their
landlord was an FBI informant in San Diego and other places. And this
was a direct, covert operation ordered, personally ordered by George W.
Bush. Personally ordered. We have incriminating evidence, documents as
well as witnesses, to this effect. It's not just incompetence - in spite
of the fact that he is incompetent. The fact is he personally ordered
this, knew about it. He, at one point, there were rehearsals of this.
The reason why he appeared to be uninterested and nonchalant on
September 11th - when those videos showed that Andrew Card whispered in
his ear the [garbled] words about this he listened to kids reading the
pet goat story, is that he thought this was another rehearsal. These
people had dress-rehearsed this many times. He had seen simulated videos
of this. In fact, he even made a Freudian slip a few months later at a
California press conference when he said he had, quote, "seen on
television the first plane attack the first tower." And that could not
be possible because there was no video. What it was was the simulated
video that he had gone over. So this was a personally government-ordered
thing. We are suing them under the Constitution for violating Americans'
rights, as well as under the federal Fraudulent Claims Act, for
presenting a fraudulent claim to Congress to justify the bogus Iraq
boondoggle war, for political gains. And also, under the RICO statute,
under the Racketeering Corrupt Organization Act, for being a corrupt
entity. And I've been harassed personally by the chief judge of the
federal court who is instructing me personally to drop this suit,
threatened to kick me off the court, after 30 years on the court. I've
been harassed by the FBI. My staff has been harassed and threatened. My
office has been broken into and this is the kind of government we are
dealing with.

AJ: Absolutely and now it has come out - five separate drills of flying
hijacked jets into buildings that morning - which you told us about
before it even broke in the Associated Press. They were trying to get
out ahead of you. You talked about how you interviewed military people
who were told it was a drill that morning. Then to get out ahead of
that, the news finally reported on it. Now, we've learned that all these
operations - I want to get into that, I want to talk about the new
incriminating evidence of ordering it and how they had drilled on this,
how Cheney was in the bunker controlling this. That has even come out in
the mainstream news but they won't release the details of that, Stanley.
But what type of FBI harassment are you going through? SH: First of all,
my office was burglarized in San Francisco several months ago. Files
were gone through and some files were seized - particularly the ones
dealing with the lady that was married to one of the hijackers.
Fortunately, I had spare copies in a hidden place so nothing disappeared
permanently. But more significantly, FBI agents have been harassing one
of my staff members and threatening them with vague but frightening
threats of indicting them. And it's just total harassment. They have
planted a spy, an undercover agent, in my organization, as we just
recently discovered. In other words, these are Nazi Germany tactics.
This is the kind of government you have in this country. This is what
Bush is all about.

AJ: Stay there, Stanley, Bob Dole's former chief of staff. We'll come
back after this quick break. Please stay with us. BREAK

AJ: All right, eight minutes, 25 seconds into the second hour. Stanley
Hilton, political scientist, lawyer, Bob Dole's former chief of staff,
is suing the government for 7 billion dollars for carrying out 9/11 and
for racketeering. And he joins us now. During the break, I first really
did the big interview with Stanley Hilton after I saw him attacked on
Fox News. And that interview got massive attention. And then he kind of
went underground for a while because a judge, we're going to talk about
that, ordered him to not do any more interviews. And now he's back doing
interviews. He's had his office broken into, FBI threats and harassment.
Bottom line, he has deposed military individuals, wives of hijackers,
you name it, it was a government operation. It has even come out in
mainstream news, a piece here, a piece there. They had drills on 9/11,
that's why NORAD stood down. Cheney was in control of the whole thing.
Stanley Hilton has now gotten documents about how Bush ordered the whole
operation. And I'll tell you right now, his life is in danger, folks.
And he's got so much courage. He went to school with these neocons at
the University of Chicago. He wrote his thesis on how the government
could use terrorist attacks to set up martial law. He is the man for the
time and folks wondered why he disappeared for a while and just did his
lawsuit and wasn't doing interviews, it was because he was ordered to.
Stanley, can you get into that for us?

SH: I did an interview with you, Alex, about a year and a half ago, and
literally two weeks after that, I was contacted by the emissary of the
chief judge of the federal court where I have the lawsuit. And I was
warned not to publicize it but to keep it quiet and threatened with
discipline. And it remained quiet until a couple of months ago and then
I got on the air on some programs and some publicity and July 1st, I was
threatened directly by the chief judge here, threatened with court
discipline. This particular judge has been circulating communiqués to
the other federal judges seeking anything negative she can get against
me to try and discipline me after I've been on the court here for 30
years with no disciplinary problems at all. This is suddenly happening.
And her assistants who are on the committee of the court met with me on
July 1st in Palo Alto, California, and threatened me directly. They
handed me a copy of the lawsuit and said that the judge wants me to
dismiss this. What's this? She doesn't like the content of it. This is
politically incorrect. This is outside the norm. I said I represented
more than 400 plaintiffs, how am I going to dismiss this case? And they
threatened me directly and they said, "the next time you'll be
disciplined." And also they've threatened me not to go public, etc. And
this is just outrageous.

AJ: It's all color of law. No direct orders, just all in your face.

SH: They sent a letter out, and of course they deny it's because of the
political content of the suit but they told me directly on the phone
that it is because of this suit and this judge is very, very angry,
apparently has been in contact with Ashcroft's Justice Department. I got
a call from Ashcroft's Justice Department a few months ago about this,
demanding that I drop the suit, threatening sanctions and all kinds of
things. I refused to drop it. AJ: Now let's go back over, you had them
break into your office, harassment. Let's go over that in detail.

SH: My office was broken into about 6 months ago. The file cabinets - it
was obvious they had been rifled through. Files were stolen. Files
dealing with this particular case and particularly with the documents I
had regarding the fact that the - some of these hijackers, at least some
of them were on the payroll of the U.S. government as undercover FBI,
CIA, double agents. They are spying on Arab groups in the U.S. And, in
effect, all this led up to the effect that al Qaeda is a creation of the
George Bush administration, basically. That the entity that he called al
Qaeda is directly linked to George Bush. And all this stuff was stolen.
Fortunately, I had copies. But this was just part of the harassment. The
FBI has also been harassing some of my assistants and has planted a spy
in our midst. And it is just outrageous that these Nazi tactics are
being used - and the obstruction of justice, these people are criminals.
And that's what's happening under the tremendous pressure here to just
drop it. Or to shut up now and just go away.

AJ: Now, let's talk about what they want you to drop. Let's talk about,
without giving names, the people you deposed, what really happened, the
picture you've got. You said earlier that Bush ordered this, they were
simulating this which they now admit there were simulations on that
morning. Let's go over what they don't want you to talk about, Stanley.

SH: We have evidence both documentary as well as witness sworn
statements from undercover former FBI agents, FBI informants, etc., that
other officials in the Pentagon and the military and the Air Force that
deal with the fact that there were many drills, many rehearsals for 9/11
before it happened. Bush had seen this simulated on TV many times. He
blurted this out at a press conference in California a few months after
9/11 where he said he had, quote, seen the first plane hit the first
building on the video. And that's not possible because there was no
official video of that. There was one of the second plane not the first
one. He had seen the first one. We do have some incriminating documents
that Bush personally ordered 9/11 events. It was well planned. A FEMA
official has admitted on tape that he was there the night before -
September 10th, that is

AJ: And now Mayor Giuliani, a few months ago in the 911 Commission,
admitted that - Tripod II. They had their whole command post already
moved out of Building 7. Now, this is very, very important. This is a
key area of this whole event. You said months before it came out on the
CIA's own website and the Associated Press, you said I deposed people.
They said there were drills that morning and exactly what happened,
happening - that was the smoke-screen for the stand-down. And then to
get out ahead of it, the CIA comes out and said yeah we were running a
drill that morning. Now, we've learned that five, possibly six, were
confirmed. Five of these - one drill with the exact same thing happening
that actually happened, at the exact same time in the morning. That's
why NORAD stood down with 24 different blips on the screen. You've said
this. You brought this up first. Now, I know you can't get too much into
detail but can you tell us how you learned of this?

SH: I have interviewed individuals in NORAD and the Air Force. I
personally toured NORAD many years ago around the time that I worked for
Dole. I'm very familiar with the operations at Cheyenne Mountain at
Colorado Springs, where NORAD is. Individuals that work in NORAD as well
as the Air Force have stated this, off the record, but the point is,
yes, this was not just five drills but at least 35 drills over at least
two months before September 11th. Everything was planned, the exact
location

AJ: But five drills that day.

SH: That day, that day, and Bush thought it was a drill. That's the only
explanation for why he appeared nonchalant

AJ: We also had NORAD officers and civilian air traffic controllers
going, "Is this part of the exercise? Is this a drill?"

SH: Yes.

AJ: On the tapes and in TV interviews, they thought it was, quote, a drill.

SH: That's right. That's exactly what I said long before it became
public. I've known about this since earlier in March of '03, as I stated
before. This was all planned. This was a government-ordered operation.
Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks.
He is guilty of treason and mass murder. And now, obstruction of justice
by attempting to use a federal judge and FBI agents to inhibit a
legitimate civil lawsuit in this country, in federal court. Even a chief
judge in this court tried to harass and threaten me personally for
representing legitimate plaintiffs. And they got Clinton for allegedly
lying under oath about Paula Jones and now - look what's happening now.
And Ken Starr used to be across from me in Duke Law School in the early
`70s and it´s interesting that he got away with trying to get Clinton
impeached, so we have a far worse criminal sitting in the oval office
today - somebody guilty of mass murder as well as obstruction of justice.

AJ: Well, I mean look, they say they never heard of a plan to fly planes
into buildings - said it all over television - Rice, Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Ashcroft. And then we find out they were running all these
drills that morning. Even if they weren't involved, that proves they
were liars about ever hearing of such a plan.

SH: Well, I'm trying to take their depositions - I've been trying to
take their depositions for months. They've been trying to object to it.
They will have to admit they were either lying then or now. It's clearly
perjury either way. They are liars and perjurers; that's what they are.
These are the people that we have running this government and, of
course, they knew about it. How are they going to claim now that they
didn't know about these drills? Their idea is that nobody knew anything.
It's the old know-nothing mentality. And how anybody considers this
believable is beyond me.

AJ: All right, now people ask how could a huge organization, how could
the AWACs, how could the military let this happen; whereas before, if
your Cessna got off course for five minutes, they would launch F-16s on
you. It's real simple. It's what Stanley Hilton said here a year and a
half ago. It's what came out in the news after that. The military, good
people, were told this was all a drill. And it was not a drill. And ABC
News admits that Cheney was in control of [?] out of the White House [?]
and that he ordered the military to quote "do something." Our inside
sources from Hilton and others say it was a stand down and they admit
they will not release that under national security. Stanley?

SH: Well they are going to admit it, they're going to release it in the
court case because if you demand it under subpoena powers and they must
release it. And part of our lawsuit is brought in the name of the U.S.
because under the federal fraudulent [Claims Act], we accuse the Bush
Administration of presenting a fraudulent claim to Congress. And under
the statutes of Title 31 of the U.S. code, they must release this
information. That's why they are trying to threaten me, harass me,
invade my office, steal my files, commit blatant obstruction of justice
and other crimes to try and prevent a legitimate civil suit from
exposing these criminals and their acts of treason and mass murder.

AJ: I think you need to publicly tell folks that you are not planning
suicide. Would you like to tell folks that?

SH: (laughs) I'm not planning suicide. I've got family and I'm not
planning that but I don't like the threats I'm under - but I can tell
you this, it's taking a toll emotionally on me and my staff. And
particularly, when you get a threat from the chief judge of your own court.

AJ: Why have you decided to go public again after a year of being under
the radar? SH: Because the more and more evidence that I've been
adducing over a year and a half has made it so obvious to me that this
was now without any doubt a government operation and that it amounts to
the biggest act of treason and mass murder in American history. I mean
George Bush makes Benedict Arnold look like a patriot. He makes Benedict
Arnold look like George Washington. I mean that's what we have - a
criminal and a traitor sitting in the White House pretending he's a
patriot, wrapping himself in the flag. And it's pretty disgusting
because the other side of the so-called opposition, the Kerry camp is
just saying nothing because they're afraid to speak.

AJ: Stay right there. We'll be right back.

BREAK

AJ: Stanley Hilton will be with us for another 15 or 16 minutes. Then
he's got to go into court. Bob Dole's former chief of staff, political
scientist, lawyer, represents 400 plus plaintiffs - most of them victims
of 9/11. When I was in New York last week, everybody I was talking to, I
mean 90 plus percent of them at ground zero - "I had family, I worked in
the buildings, my son's a Navy Seal - he called the night before and
said don't go to work." You know, all of this, and then now they never
had any idea - and it turns out they had all these drills - and one
drill of hijacked jets flying into the World Trade Center and Pentagon
at 8:30 in the morning. That morning - come on people! And Stanley
Hilton brought all this out on this show before it was in the mainstream
news. And I was talking to him during the break. I mean, the harassment,
the moles, the threatening of his staff, the judge threatening him.
Stanley, let's get specifically into the documents that you have now got
that they have now been robbing you for, that you luckily, thank God had
copies. Specifically, Bush ordering this. Can you get into that for us -
ordering 9/11? SH: National Security Council classified documents which
[garbled] and it's was part of a series of documents that were involved
with the drill documents. This was all planned - they had it on
videotape. These planes were controlled by remote control, as I stated
previously a year and a half ago, there's a system called Cyclops. There
is a computer chip in the nose of the plane and it enables the ground
control, the military ground control, to disable the pilot's control of
the plane and to control it and to fly it directly into those towers.
That's what happened. It's also a technology used on what's called the
Global Hawk, which is an aircraft drone - a remote- controlled aircraft.
And they were doing it. We are talking about National Security Council
classified documents that clearly indicated that [garbled] had a green
light to order this to go and this is no drill. These drills that were
running were clearly a dress rehearsal and this was a government
operation. You wonder why these people are trying to threaten people and
trying to intimidate people who have written this suit, I guess if you
murdered 3000 of your own citizens, in conjunction with the corrupt
Royal family of Saudi Arabia as Bush did. And if you then waste billions
more on a worthless garbage war in Iraq, I guess you've got something to
worry about and you want to threaten people to prevent it from coming out.

AJ: I mean let's look at this. Not only are there dress rehearsals, they
are smoke screens so the good military stands down and doesn't know
what's happening. But it's now coming out, even in mainstream news, that
yes these drills were going on. Yes, and some of these drills, quote,
passenger-type jets were under remote control - this is decades old
technology. In 1958, NORAD was [ ] old jets and using them for target
practice. Decades ago they flew jumbo jets from LA to Sidney Australia.
So since that's going on, everybody knows that. And it's the same MO.
Just like the first World Trade Center [bombing] where they get two
retarded men who followed this blind sheik who had a tiny mosque above a
pizza parlor. And they set them up as the patsies. Then the FBI cooks
the bomb, trains the drivers. This informant goes, "You're not going to
bomb the building? They go "Yeah, we're letting it go forward." He tapes
them to protect themselves. The two retarded gentlemen, thank God,
didn't park it up against the column, as the FBI instructed them to do,
so it didn't bring down the tower - because you have to be right up
against the column. That doesn't happen. Yet, it's the same thing with
9/11. You've got these CIA agents, these Arabs, who were trained at U.S.
military bases, Pensacola Naval Air Station - mainstream media, out
creating their legends for this background. They're on board the
aircraft. My military sources say nerve gas kills everybody on board the
plane - nerve gas packets. Then they fly the planes into buildings. From
your inside sources, is that accurate?

SH: It's one of the things that we are looking into - that nerve gas or
something else disabled people. It's possible. I can't say for sure to
be honest with you

AJ: All you know is they were government agents and they were on board
and the planes were remote controlled.

SH: Yeah, it was basically a smokescreen. I mean, the events of the
hijackings, how someone snuck in those cutters, it was a plant. It was
like a classic decoy. I've got some military background. And it's called
decoy. It's a decoy operation. You make the people focus on the decoy to
avoid looking at the real criminals. So they are focusing on these
so-called nineteen hijackers and saying, "Oh, it must have been these
Arabs. When, in fact, the guilty person is at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -
sitting in the oval office. That's the guilty person. That's the one who
authorized it. There is only one man who could have authorized this
operation and that's Bush. And anyone at NORAD will tell you as I have
been told personally at NORAD in the war control room, there is only one
man who has the power to do this kind of thing and that's Bush. Even
though many believe he's a puppet. And I think in many ways he is. The
fact of the matter is where was [ ] Cheney, Rumsfeld and these other
traitors. The fact is Bush personally ordered and he's guilty and liable
and he's going to be re-elected apparently because the media's asleep
and [garbled] for Bush. AJ: Well, the media is owned by the same
military industrial complex that carried out the attacks.

SH: Yeah, the media is only interested in maintaining the official
government fantasy that this was a little lone Arab. These Arabs
couldn't even steer that plane down a runway.

AJ: Stay there Stanley, final segment coming up. BREAK

AJ: Mr. Hilton, when you talk to these FBI agents, when you talk to
these military men and women, what's their attitude? They've got to be
pretty freaked out to have the big picture and know what actually
happened on 9/11.

SH: Yes, you know it's like clouds just before a thunderstorm in the
sense that they are sort of pregnant with rage. They are just enraged at
the criminal politicians who have perverted and misused the government
to murder its own citizens and pursue these dubious political ends. And
many of them, in increasing numbers, are willing to talk and will talk
under subpoena - but only under subpoena because the official party line
of the government is shut up and don't talk to the trial lawyer. But
more and more, they are very outraged that part of the government has
done this to its own people, to its own people. I mean you have to go
back to Stalin to see something - not even Hitler did this to his own
people. You have to look at Stalin who murdered the Kulaks, the Russians
for his own dubious gains. Also we've got - we have a Stalinist
mentality in this country. And, if these people pose as patriots and
wrap themselves in the flag, it's disgusting. I wanted also to point out
that the Japanese television network, Asahi, is going to be airing a
special on primetime tomorrow, on September 11th. They interviewed me
for eight hours a couple of weeks ago. I'll be on that. I wish - of
course, the America media don't care so they are not going to care. But
in Japan, people are very serious in interviewing me and others. And we
have a website now, called deprogram.info, if more people are
interested: www.deprogram.info. But the other thing, I just wanted to
say that if anything happens to me - and I don't know why - because I'm
being threatened here now. And it seems you can't bring a case in this
country anymore against criminals in power without being threatened. And
this is how they operate. The stakes are pretty high when you've got a
world historical level of treason and fraud by this government against
it's own people. I guess this is what you have to expect.

AJ: Stanley, the globalists, the new world order crowd, definitely
intend to carry out more terror attacks. I know they would have carried
out more attacks if we wouldn't have done what we've been up to, if you
wouldn't have been out there boldly speaking out and many others. And
then their electronic Berlin wall has a bunch of cracks in it now.
Thanks to good people like yourself and many others who are speaking out
and telling the truth. But do you think that they may carry out what
they've been hyping - a suitcase nuke attack, a biological release to
try to smokescreen all of this? I know it's a catch 22, you've got to
expose the murderers. We've got to get the word out on this but some
government people that I've talk to say, "Yeah, but if you do that, they
are going to go even more hard core and must totally try to take over."
But I say regardless, they are already doing that. So what do you say to
that?

SH: Well, yeah, I think they have an agenda. They have contingency
plans. I think they are laying low now because there are an increasing
number of people, like myself, who are openly challenging them and
accusing them of criminal conduct. I think they would have done it again
if we had not spoken up. I think they're planning, what they would like
to do is silence any dissenters. That's why we are trying to get the
Patriot Act declared unconstitutional in this lawsuit also.

AJ: Let's talk about polls. In the beginning a patriot is a scarce man,
hated and feared, but in time when his cause succeeds, the timid join
him, because then it costs nothing to be a patriot. You are one of those
guys who hit the barbwire for us, or figuratively jumped on the hand
grenade for America. But when you've got a Zogby poll, who is highly
respected, half of New Yorkers believe that the government was involved.
When you have a Canadian poll, 63% on average believe that the U.S.
government was involved. And some groups, as high as 76% in polls
believe the government was involved. European polls, two- thirds show
the same thing. We have German defense ministers and technology
ministers and another member of their government now, three of them
going public, known conservatives, and progressives. You have an
environment minister, Michael Meacher, saying that if they didn't do it,
they sure as hell knew what was going on. Look, if anybody who is a
thinking person looks at the evidence, their official story is
impossible. Then you investigate and they are involved in it. Comments
to this massive awakening and what's happening.

SH: Well, I think that's why they want the Patriot Act to suppress
political dissent. They have to, they're anticipating, they are not dumb
individuals. I know these people personally, Wolfowitz. These are
criminal individuals but they are smart and so they anticipated
political dissent. And that's why, like the Nazis, their forebears, and
their blood brothers, the Nazis and the Stalinists, they're all for
political repression. Every corrupt and criminal government has done
this - they suppress their own people: Nazi Germany, Communist Russia,
Mao Tse-Tung, that's why we have the Patriot Act. So it's hand in hand.
They had it planned to go right up to September 11th, this was all part
of the plan. You have to do it. It was part of my senior thesis. You
must follow through the terrorists attacks with a political suppression
mechanism in the law. And that's why they want Patriot I and Patriot II
and their plans are to continue launching more terrorist attacks to
justify even more repression. The goal is to make this a one party
dictatorship in this country, to pursue their dubious ends with their
blood brothers like the Saudi Royal family. And also, historical blood
brothers, such as the Nazi Germany and the Communist Russian. That's the
goal

AJ: You've got to go in just a minute or two. But I wanted to also tell
you about New York. Sound cannons that are used in Iraq, they're against
us. Men in black ski masks. 41,000 police, accredited media being
arrested randomly. Children being arrested, people in wheelchairs, 2000
plus people put in a camp with barbwire fences inside with no bathrooms.
You had to have permission to go to the porta-potties. Police screaming
at you. It had nothing to do with terrorism. They are openly setting the
precedent for martial law.

SH: Well, that's right, the word terrorist is now being overly broad and
overly defined [garbled] and also, you know, it's like the word
communist was used for anything during the McCarthy witch hunt. And
anybody can be called a terrorist by Bush's definition. But the irony is
that the number one terrorist in the world is living at the White House
at the oval office today. That's the real irony. For sheer hypocrisy, I
think he deserves the world prize and ought to be in the Ripley book,
Believe It or Not, and the Guinness book of world records for sheer
brazen chicanery and fraud.

AJ: Let me ask you a question on this because this is the experience
that I had. Watching television, watching the killers, watching those
that are guilty, stand up there as our saviors is incredibly painful.
It's like watching Ted Bundy being the judge at his own trial. I mean it
is just painful to know who these people are. To see them putting
America in a shredder. Now we are going to have forced psychological
testing of every American, forced drugging, you know Pan-American
unions, I mean it's just all happening, it's in our face, Stanley.

SH: Yeah, it's very disturbing and as one who has studied the theory and
concept of dictatorships, I personally interviewed Albert Speer, who was
Hitler's armaments minister. I interviewed him in 1981 in Munich. And
I've studied the psychology and history of totalitarianism and there is
no question that it's very frightening. And it has, today, with high
technology, albeit for the first time in history, the chance of having a
world empire dominated by corrupt, technologically oriented government -
an elite government. And they've got now what people like Napoleon and
Hitler didn't have, which is the technological means to dominate not
only their own country but others - the world.

AJ: The answer is to expose them as the terrorists, to show how PNAC
[Project for the New American Century] said we need helpful Pearl Harbor
events, to show how Northwoods called for the exact 9/11-style attacks,
to show their own plans. And to force people to face this horror. What
are they going to do in a year or two when 80% of us, not half of us,
know the truth?

SH: Well, that's why they want repression and, then again, the ancient
old diversion, launch another terrorist attack to get people to pitch it
away. I mean who knows what they'll do next. I mean their capacity for
ingenious creation of these events is sort of unraveled. I mean there is
no limit. My guess is they are going to try another stunt - maybe a
stunt just before the election to justify getting Bush reelected.
Although it seems like he is running against a straw man or a ghost
right now, anyway. But, my guess is they'll try some other tactic to get
people's attention away from 9/11 if it gets to be too much attention.
What you really want is for the public to just lose interest because the
public - and it's like remember the Alamo, you know, people don't forget
things like that. To me it's like the Alamo, remember 9/11, that ought
to be the slogan for this outrageous act of treason. That's what it is.
It's not

AJ: We are at a crossroads, I don't think they anticipated this much
resistance, Stanley.

SH: Yeah, I hope they are truly wrong and as incompetent as they are
corrupt and guilty. That means their incompetence is exceeded only by
their corruption and their guilt. And eventually, if enough people are
going to get outraged enough, these people in the bureaucracy and in the
civil service and our military, and eventually we can get people under
subpoena these individuals will be exposed.

AJ: Stanley, their whole operation hinges on us being naïve and not
recognizing evil. This is what they got with Hitler and others. People
couldn't recognize evil so they continued to repeat succumbing to it. We
are recognizing it this time. We are putting our lives, our treasure,
our future on the line for freedom because we cannot let these
blood-thirsty control freak terrorists capture us and use us and turn us
into the empire and have a draft and use us as their slaves to invade
the planet. And that's their PNAC plan. Stanley Hilton, I know you've
got to get to court. God bless you. I want to thank you for being here
with us today. Can we get you back on next week?

SH: Sure, just give me a call.

AJ: God bless you my friend. Any closing comments?

SH: My closing comments would be, I think people ought to just think
about the consequence of having someone like Bush in the White House and
the danger for the future that these sorts of individuals pose. This is
not just a historical event of the past. This is part of the plan and
the camera is still rolling. They have an agenda. These individuals are
extremely dangerous. They are armed and dangerous. They pose a clear and
dangerous threat to every freedom-loving person not only American but in
the whole world.

AJ: You are absolutely right Stanley Hilton. They have captured the
government. They have not captured the peoples' minds and they are
counting on us not facing up to it.

SH: And they are counting on the repressive Patriot Act and threats and
chief judges and FBI agents threatening people who are exposing them.
That's what they are counting on.

AJ: But you're not backing down are you, my friend.

SH: No, I'm not

AJ: Well, we all stand with you, my brother, and God bless you.

SH: All right. Thank you.


/Global Research Articles by Alex Jones/
..



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
wait, logic and reason and duh doh, still it does it matter, uh, there is not such place like home, there is not such place like home....responses expected shortly from the non believers

thanks for post comment, maybe we can find a link to the episode so people can listen, as I always find voice and eye movement to be good tale tell signs of what a person is really saying and if it is true.

If their lips are moving, they are lying, fits Bush and syndicate and what appears to be reaching to Blair and the Crown, just as much, along with a few other governments...organized crime empire syndicate
edit on 15-5-2012 by earthinhabitant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
No, "cover ups" are not necessarily crimes. "Covering up" the names of our spies is not a crime. Covering up our miltitary projects is not a crime.



That's a different story man. Look at it like this...

Person A pays Person B to kill your father.

Person B gets caught and sentenced for the murder.

The police know that Person A paid Person B to kill your father, but hide all evidence and connections.

Do you really think justice has been served in only convicting the one who committed the murder, and not the one who funded it? Because that's what this is, except it's on a much larger scale..more so like 3,000 dead people with their families STILL questioning who really is to blame. It's definitely F*CKED UP that these people lost their loved ones and still 10years+ later they still have no clue who was completely behind it.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Here is another video that will maybe be of interest to some of you, who like a movie with a little artistic drama and theatrical performances...would score it 2 thumbs up, since only have two, to do so, with a 7 out of 10 stars, just cause of the subject matter was of interest and the well done acting




One Actor, One Room, Seven Characters: 9/11.

Traumatized by the September 11th attacks, one man struggles to dismantle official history, at the expense of his sanity and even his life. Grappling with multiple realities - and multiple personalities - he must retreat into his mind in pursuit of the truth. In a fictional film about non-fictional events, there is a place where belief and faith will blind you, where nothing is sacred, and to get there all you have to do is ask:

"Who Killed John O'Neill?"

a dead art film by ty rauber and ryan thurston



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1


Do you really believe that the cover up of the possible Saudi involvement by the government has nothing to do with the fact that most of the hijackers were Saudi, the fact that Saudis have a long history of doing business with members of our government, and that members of the Saudi royal family was directly or Indirectly financing the terrorists?


Oh man. No. Have a look at what I wrote about it at some length above. I'm pretty specific about what I think, which is that there is a cover up based on a realist political decision that seeks not to alienate Saudi Arabia or its ruling class. I even gave you an example of where that relationship had borne fruit.


And it shouldn’t be investigated to rule out the involvement of members of our government?


That's a very general question, predicated by what you mean by involvement. There's no direct evidence of US govt involvement in 9/11, and even the ties with Saudi look looser as soon as you look into them.

Take the above source which tries to claim that George H W Bush was in some kind of meeting with a Bin Laden. The briefest investigation would have shown you that the writer is attempting to mislead by pretending there is a deeper connection between the Bushes and Bin Laden than actually exists. Ask yourself: why would someone do this? What is their agenda?

If you're resorting to the old 9/11 Truther tactic of watching as your evidence floats away and then demanding that anyone who doesn't want "an investigation" is somehow opposed to open government, then I would respond that no, I'm not really interested in an expensive and time-consuming "investigation" until someone can come up with something better than the crappy, easily-dismissed 'evidence' you employ above.


Our government official were getting a lot on money from the Saudis, but there is no chance that they could have been directly or indirectly involved with the Saudi terrorists?
edit on 14-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


If you have some evidence that they were feel free to show it. You don't, so you can't.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

It does not evidence involvement in 9/11 by either party because they are covering it up, and don’t let this being really looked into.
Don t you understand that if people cover up their activities it's because that the truth would hurt them in someway? It's illegal for the government to cover things up. *****NIXON **** ring a bell?


Okay. So there's no evidence because it's a cover up. Do you realise that you can claim anything at all based on that logic? In fact it was the exact argument that the "B" team - featuring Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz - used to justify their notion that the Soviets had a missile defence system and an advanced anti-submarine detector in the 70s.

When critics pointed out that there was no evidence for either, they countered that this was because the Russians were so sophisticated they were pretending there was no evidence. On this basis some of them wanted to start a nuclear war.

You're employing the same faulty thinking here. The lack of evidence for you is evidence, because it suggests a cover up. One might as well argue that there is an Al Qaeda base on the moon and justify it's existence in exactly the same manner.

I repeat - you should also ask why the author of the second extract feel the need to twist what happened in order to make it look like there is evidence? Is he party to some greater truth - one that you also believe in - and lying about it is justified because it's important to get that truth out?



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


partners in crime before 9/11 and getting to fly out of the country and escape the wrath of the people, when your son is being betrayed as the one responsible is implicated in the media, sounds like a good deal maker and sign on the dotted line, if you want to leave alive, or since we are good friends and partners, doubt was any extortion, however would not surprise one bit, it was a deal maker, no agreeing, no going anywhere, all planes and flights canceled, looks like you are going to need to spend the night here in the US, sure hope no one figures it out before we lift the ban on flights...uh oh,..,but hey we are partners right, as look at the profits we are going to make now and we are family, our thing ....




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
There's no direct evidence of US govt involvement in 9/11, and even the ties with Saudi look looser as soon as you look into them.


The ties look looser? The documents are redacted/classified and the public has not seen them. May I ask how you managed to come to this conclusion without seeing these documents? No hostility, just tired of people bashing each other over quality of evidence on both sides of the fence.



WASHINGTON — The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document.

One U.S. official who has read the classified section said it describes "very direct, very specific links" between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators "that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental."

The nearly 900-page report, released last week, concluded that a series of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence failures preceded the Sept. 11 attacks and that there was evidence of financial support for the hijackers by an unnamed foreign government. U.S. officials have confirmed that that government is Saudi Arabia, but nearly all the details supporting that claim are contained in the lengthy redacted section of the document.

edit on 16-5-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


One only need look at the official story to know what did and did not happen, and who is in on it has been proven over and over again, shown to us all who the real terrorist were that day and the operations and players galore.
edit on 16-5-2012 by earthinhabitant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


almost does suggest that they could have been made out the be the patsy, and wondering if there was a new deal brokered between the two, that would not entail them being investigated in exchange for, permission to leave the country, and new exchange rate on the oil.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthinhabitant
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


One only need look at the official story to know what did and did not happen, and who is in on it has been proven over and over again, shown to us all who the real terrorist were that day and the operations and players galore.
edit on 16-5-2012 by earthinhabitant because: (no reason given)


You can write that as a general assertion if you like. But we are dealing with specifics here and the fact remains that nobody has been able to produce evidence of an incriminating link between the US authorities and the perpetrators of 9/11 or their connections. Maxella even admits it above.

You may find it rewarding to bring blanket, evidence-free statements into a discussion about specific aspects of this. But I don't find it terribly compelling.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 




If you're resorting to the old 9/11 Truther tactic of watching as your evidence floats away and then demanding that anyone who doesn't want "an investigation" is somehow opposed to open government, then I would respond that no, I'm not really interested in an expensive and time-consuming "investigation" until someone can come up with something better than the crappy, easily-dismissed 'evidence' you employ above.


Lol, easily dismissed evidence by you and some of your boddys here. Not in the real world. But we can't get the investigation for the same reason OJ Simpson didn't go to jail for murder... Good lawyers, Not proved innocents.





new topics




 
10
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join