George W Bush Authorized 911 Attacks Says Government Insider

I havent yet confermed this from any other source like the ABC and i dont know how reliable the Pakistan daily is (maybe sam can answer that) so for the moment this is just a laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If there was no reason to be suspicious of the collapse of building 7, they could have handed out samples of the debris to every qualified party that was interested. Stonewalling is a valid reason for suspicion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, the Secret Service, CIA, and OEM offices, along with hazardous/flammable materials were among the reasons the cleanup was expedited and not greatly publicized.

This tiresome conspiracy theory (like all of the most grandiose ones) would require a heinous conspiracy involving far too many people for there not to be leaks that would have rapidly and utterly exposed the deception.

WTC 7 after the clobbering, fire and collapse was a tangled, hazardous mess with a lot of classified materials requiring sanitizing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

George W. Bush is an evil genius who controls the entire universe including all of your thoughts. Of course 9/11 was part of his plan.

Bwahaha...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Bush lacks the competence to pull 9/11 off

 

Why try to conceal anything when it's a lot easier to add a lot of disinformation to the data stream until it is more noise than signal? Information has been getting out since literally day one when I heard on television that they said that they were going to do a controlled demolition, which is a physical impossibility in those circumstances.

 

MetaKron: "Why try to conceal anything when it's a lot easier to add a lot of disinformation to the data stream until it is more noise than signal?"

Because operations become confused. First priority is to secure classified materials, then assess any compromise.

"I heard on television that they said that they were going to do a controlled demolition, which is a physical impossibility in those circumstances."

A lot of things were said on TV shortly after 9-11 that was confusion.

 

It was only incompetence that was needed on his part.

 

aparently this is a real case which is quite surprising, I thought it was going to turn out to be a fake. Whats MORE surprising however is the fact that the judge through it out because no one can sue the president. What happened to everyone equal under the law?

 

Asguard: "...for the moment this is just a laugh"

...aparently this is a real case...

...the judge through it out..."

You're obviously having some cognitive difficulties with this one. Try to remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Then spend a few minutes learning about Stanley Hilton's background as an attorney and credible source. He's a hack trying to gain notoriety as the Truthers' leading attorney.

 

hyper im not the judge or jury on the case, my shock was the fact that the judge didnt throw it out for lack of evidence, he through it out because you cant sue the president.

As i said the foundation of westen law is that ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. that means that if there was enough evidence to send a case to trial its up to the judge or jury (depending) as to wether the case is substantiated on the balance of probablilities (in a civil case) or behond all reasonable doubt (in a criminal one). A sitting judge in australia was thrown out of the legal proffession and jailed for pergury because he lied as to who was driving his car when he recived a speeding ticket. More than one politition has been arested for drink driving, no one is above the law

 

Wow! A newspaper in a third world country, who's population is hostile to the USA, published a report by an "insider" who said that Bush authorized 9/11.

The utter stupidity of this tired claim is beyond comprehension. Keeping something small secret is a monumental task for any nation. Governments (like the USA) struggle to keep things like the Stealth Fighter, CIA agent's covers, and Watergate break-ins a secret, but somehow the minds of this board are actually entertaining the notion that a job was carried out by LITERALLY HUNDREDS of American (and numerous foreign) agents that caused the deaths of thousands of Americans, that Pulitzer Prize winning reporters were mislead in their thorough research, that independent investigations by unaffiliated organizations and foreign governments were all faked, that Al Qaeda was tricked in to taking the blame... AND it's all been kept a secret by the HUNDREDS of people who orchestrated the whole sordid affair for the better part of a decade now with no credible and/or verifiable insider leaks!

Yeah right.

"Go sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here."

~String

PS-- Sam Hilton is an outsider and he's about as much on the "outside" as any person gets.

 

string give me more credit than that, i posted this as a joke untill i actually googled his name and FOUND the case.

 

Asguard, you're showing your ignorance of the US court system. The judge could not even LEGALLY entertain the case -- worthy or not -- because the Constitution forbids such a lawsuit out of hand. There was nothing more to add. Zip. Nada. NOTHING. The judge didn't even have legal grounds to add, "Well, maybe in a few years." It doesn't work like that. A case has to be LEGAL to even be entertained on even the smallest level. If the case's foundation is categorically unlawful, then there is nothing more to say.

That's rubbish. You know that people on this board would latch on to your post and attempt to use it to legitimize YET ANOTHER "Bush is evil" jeremiad.

But, based on your comments, should I presume that you no longer think it's a laughing matter because you find his testimony credible, or did you intentionally fail to do the research in advance in order to avoid vetting your resources?

~String

 

actually no, its the problem with the constitution i find more worrying say the president is driving drunk, the family of the person he runs down dont have any recorse to the law?
There are 100 or more other cases where it could arise independent of this case (right or wrong) where a legal case against the president SHOULD be tried yet acording to this none can be made.

This calls into question the principle of ALL ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW and the rule of law ITSELF. Infact what it means is the president is a king for the time he serves and "his people" have no way of challaging HIS actions

Its the first time i have understood why the americans fear there goverment so much

 

We have Constitutional processes for impeachment, removal from office, and prosecution of Presidents. Public anger at President Bush has yet to rise to the level of triggering these remedies. I'm not afraid of my system of government- I'm afraid of the blind apathy of my countrymen.

But returning to Stanley Hilton's crap: It's crap. We don't need to entertain outlandish theories to find evidence of high crimes in the White House.

 

Again, you're showing your ignorance. And it's pretty tiresome.

1) A sitting US president must be able to avoid appearing in court cases while in office because of the very nature of his office. Any US citizen can bring a court case, put him under oath and force him to testify. He'd never get anything done!
2) A sitting US president CAN be put on trial, but only in the US congress. It's called impeachment and they can impeach him for any crime or misdemeanor-- no matter how insignificant (see: Bill Clinton's ridiculous impeachment).
3) After leaving office, a former president can be tried just like any other citizen.
Lastly, (as taken from you most recent comments):
4) You're back pedaling. It's ridiculous and tiresome. You stated as plain as day, "my shock was the fact that the judge didn't throw it out for lack of evidence" in an attempt to point out that the judge couldn't deny the credibility of the case only that the president was immune to being tried in court. Which is blatantly deceptive and ignorant. The judge didn't even have a legal right to comment on the facts of the matter, only that it was illegal to sue the president. Period. End of discussion. Five minutes later you try to spin it as, "Oh, I'm just concerned about the equality of the president... blah blah blah." Well, he is, but as President he isn't tried in normal courts, he's tried in the Senate of the USA after being impeached by the House of Representatives.

~String

PS- presidential immunity is common in Federal Republics and you can see it in places like Mexico, Brazil, Germany, India and France. This isn't an American thing only.

 

Another thread destined to be forgotten quickly...

 

super string i cant think of a single PM or even a premure who was charged or convicted or either a criminal offence or civil one off the top of my head. that being said you will probably see a MINSTER charged within a couple of weeks if you wait with assult and pergury. The law is the law and BOTH the accused and the acuser have a right to a speedy trial

Put it this way, if a president shoplifts in his first week in office he can put off the charges until after the statute of limitations. What about an alergation of rape?

What is a server enough crime to actually have the courts deal with it?

as you said the clinton case was a joke but what about dick chany shooting his friend, is HE exempt from criminal charges as well?

Basically what your saying is that a political party can stop CRIMINAL procidings for there own benifit?

Can i point out that very recently a labor party MINISTER was convicted of pedophila, now your saying that if its in the best interests of the PARTY then they can shield the president from those charges? Say this was the case and the case was just delayed for 6 years while he served his term, how many OTHER children could he abuse in that time?

I honestly cant see how you dont think this is a big deal

 

Perhaps it is this type of dismissive attitude which allows for your government to get away with so much. From what I've read, you're certainly not apathetic when it comes to politics; however, I do find it surprising that you bluntly ignore the theories you sincerely hope to be fraudulent.

Kadark the Judge