So You Want *PROOF* of a Conspiracy?

Excellent!!! Nick!

There is so much *Circumstantial* evidence that it 'blows my mind'. People are for some reason always wanting a 'smoking gun' while forgetting that most murder cases are built on circumstantial evidence. If a murder case can use circumstantial evidence, why not this?

What you have shown here is another piece of the puzzle. When the dots are connected some very dark conclusions have to be reached.

Very good stuff.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by fooffstarr

You have voted nick7261 for the Way Above Top Secret award

Great work.

Sorry i haven't got much more to post, but you really have nailed it. I'll be watching this unfold. I just wish that things like this would be covered properly in the media. Sure, they covered the story, but i'm sure it is a lot bigger a deal than what they make it out to be.

Thanks!

Yes, it's frustrating that the media doesn't cover this stuf, but I think it's because the mainstream media is literally owned by the clients of consulting firms like Stonebridge.

You have to ask yourself, *WHO* is the mainstream media? Who owns the networks and the papers? Who are the editors? What are their best interests? Who are their friends?

It seems increasingly obvious that the Bushes and the Clintons swim in the same cesspool. No wonder Bill and Poppi are so chummy. We, as a people, are constantly badgered into adopting false choices. Conservative vs. liberal, red states vs. blue states, Republican vs. Democrat, Christian vs. Muslem, etc. The idea is to keep the American public bickering among themselves, while the chosen few edit the Constitution and subvert the Republic, all the while enriching themselves and their cronies.

If not for these successful diversionary tactics, the politico's in DC would be tarred and feathered by millions of pitchfork and torch carrying citizens and sent packing.

Originally posted by talisman
Excellent!!! Nick!

There is so much *Circumstantial* evidence that it 'blows my mind'. People are for some reason always wanting a 'smoking gun' while forgetting that most murder cases are built on circumstantial evidence. If a murder case can use circumstantial evidence, why not this?

What you have shown here is another piece of the puzzle. When the dots are connected some very dark conclusions have to be reached.

Very good stuff.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by talisman]

Thanks!!

Yes, one of the "dark" conclusions that I've reached is that the two-party system in Washington is a facade. Berger and his friends, former big shots from both Republican and Democratic administrations are making millions "influencing" other governments so that big businesses can benefit.

The average citizens in the U.S. and in the countries where Berger works his magic get screwed.

And the people are naive enough to think that the Democrats are better than the Republicans, and vice versa.

I was in a lawsuit not too long ago, and I realized it wasn't me against my adversary in the suit, it was the lawyers against whoever had any money. It's the same in our government. Instead of government for the people, it's politicians out for themselves.

You have voted nick7261 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Excellent thread Nick, This should be relayed to the 9/11 Truth movement as it pinpoints the Berger/Hamilton connection in black & white.

Even if you can't grasp all the theories on what happened on 9/11, there is no denying that this situation reeks of a hidden agenda which blows a HUGE hole in the validity of the 9/11 commission report.

Outstanding work, I love how most of the condemning evidence you found comes from their own "in your face" material.

Al Gore must ba a DAMN good actor then...Seems like He, and about half of America was really pissed when Bush won. I guess that was all a part of this government plot.

Interesting research Nick. My focus now is on the Neo-Nazi opportunists that want to use the "9/11 Truth Movement propaganda campaign" to mobilize people against the USA.

I am satisfied that the Government did not actively participate in the events of 9/11...contrary to what the "truth movement" is preaching to the young and/or feeble minded.

I will concede that the 9/11 Commission's investigation and report are not as competent and comprehensive as a work of this magnitude should be.

Cheers! and palms down.


[edit on 25-2-2007 by GwionX]

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
You have voted nick7261 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Excellent thread Nick, This should be relayed to the 9/11 Truth movement as it pinpoints the Berger/Hamilton connection in black & white.

Even if you can't grasp all the theories on what happened on 9/11, there is no denying that this situation reeks of a hidden agenda which blows a HUGE hole in the validity of the 9/11 commission report.

Outstanding work, I love how most of the condemning evidence you found comes from their own "in your face" material.

Thanks!!!

I've found in general that if you look enough, almost all of the "most condemning" evidence comes from their own material, like the NIST reports, FEMA reports, 9/11 Commission Report, etc.

I'm still surprised at how brazen these people are though...

And this is only 1/2 the story... I'm working on putting up another post that shows how Berger and his cohorts at Stonebridge set out to make sure Curt Weldon, the congressman who exposed Able Danger, was defeated.

Originally posted by CameronFox
Good question... IS there anyone that knows what was on the documents that were stolen and destroyed? Since it was considered classified...I doubt we will know.

Remember that movies that aired on one of the networks last fall...The Path to 911...the one Clinton and his henchmen cried and complained about...


These stolen documents were script to that movie. That is what they were trying to hide!

Originally posted by GwionX
Al Gore must ba a DAMN good actor then...Seems like He, and about half of America was really pissed when Bush won. I guess that was all a part of this government plot.

Interesting that you brought up Al Gore losing. In case you missed it, the Clinton's weren't too unhappy about Gore losing. And did you catch Hillary's campaign speeches for Kerry last time around? Didn't think so, because there weren't many.

And by the way, wtf does Gore being pissed have to do with this thread?

BtW nick,

Good work on this. If I had votes left I'd vote for you now. Keep it up.

"Yes, one of the "dark" conclusions that I've reached is that the two-party system in Washington is a facade."

Gore wasn't pissed...he has no reason to be pissed..it's all just a big facade to distract America...BLAH

Originally posted by GwionX
Gore wasn't pissed...he has no reason to be pissed..it's all just a big facade to distract America...BLAH

Does it really matter if Gore was pissed or not?

BLAH!???

Do you have a point you're trying to make?

You have voted nick7261 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

Great post!
Great Research!
Hats off to you.

Funny gwion should say that.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by GwionX
Good speech! My focus now is on the Neo-Nazi opportunists that want to use the "9/11 Truth Movement propaganda campaign" to mobilize people against the USA.

I am satisfied that the Government did not actively participate in the events of 9/11...contrary to what the "truth movement" is preaching to the young and/or feeble minded.

I will concede that the 9/11 Commission's investigation and report are not as competent and comprehensive as a work of this magnitude should be.

Cheers! and palms down.

Your focus is on the Neo-Nazi opportunists that want to use the "9/11 Truth Movement propaganda campaign" to mobilize people against the USA??

If you're not trying to derail this thread gwion,
which is quite an impressive thread!
what are you trying to do?

Nick, I wish I could give you WATS again.
Very impressive research my friend.
Everything continues to unfold, its great.
Keep up the good work!

Originally posted by nick7261
1) Sandy Berger Pleads Guilty to Destroying 9/11 Documents

Acutally, your "proof", which is in reality just a news article, claims that the documents were related to the Millennium plot, not the 911 plot.

Originally posted by nick7261
2) Berger Gets Slap on the Wrist, Then Hires 9/11 Commission Co-Chair Lee Hamilton

Since the documents he destroyed were not related to the 911 plot, the thin line you're stretching here breaks. Apples. Oranges. 911. Millennium plot.

Since one is not the other, the remainder of the argument is academic, and needs not be addressed.

As I mentioned in the other thread, the one that apparently motivated you to create this one, "Grandiose claims require grandiose evidence. What you have presented here is a series of articles that have no bearing upon the 911 attack.

For future reference, this is how an argument goes:

Average Joe: Well, X is an established fact.
Skeptic: No way, X is wrong its really Z.
Average Joe: Ok, lemme see something to back that up.
Skeptic: Ok, well here I have Exhibit A, and here is Exhibit B, and Exhibit C.
Average Joe: So?
Skeptic: So because A, then B, and finally C, Z couldn't have happened.
Average Joe: Why?
Skeptic: We have tested it over and over, it it demonstrable and repeatable, and we have tangible evidence in A B and C. Z cannot be, and we have shown in independent conditions using the proofs at hand.
Average Joe: Maybe common wisdom needs to be amended here.

But what you're doing is this:

Average Joe: Well, X is an established fact.
Skeptic: No way, X is wrong its really Z.
Average Joe: Ok, lemme see something to back that up.
Skeptic: No. Prove me wrong.
Average Joe: Son, I have established fact on my side, you need to show me something to back up these claims.
Skeptic: No, I'm right, I know it.
Average Joe: What makes you so sure?
Skeptic: Well, there were these videos on the internet...
Average Joe: Video evidence?
Skeptic: Well, no. Some guy made a convincing documentary....
Average Joe: Son, thats an opinion, not a fact.
Skeptic: No no, its real I know it and you have to prove me wrong.
Average Joe: It doesn't work that way.
Skeptic: Yes it does!!! Yes it does!!!
Average Joe: Ok whatever man.

Originally posted by GwionX
"Yes, one of the "dark" conclusions that I've reached is that the two-party system in Washington is a facade."

The problem is that they still have the majority of americans believing thier lies.

This is good nick, but we need more.

What we need is something earth shattering that will get the people behind us.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by In nothing we trust]

Reality - there are a few problems with your reasoning.

First 'relates' is such an ambiguous term that you can't use it to prove or disprove anything.

Secondly, from the CNN article:

At that time, he said the reason he took the documents was so he could prepare himself and others to assist the 9/11 commission, which investigated the circumstances surrounding the 2001 terrorist attacks and published a report of its findings last year.

Source in OP.

Now if preparing for the 9/11 commission was a good enough reason that it was accepted as his reason for taking the documents, surely the documents have some bearing on 9/11?

And thirdly, to turn the age-old analogy on its head, apples and oranges are both fruit. One, a terrorist threat in 2000 - the other, a terrorist attack in 2001. Surely the two deserve some comparison? Different kinds they may be, but they are both fruit. Nick may be comparing apples with oranges, but you're accusing him of comparing apples with a pair of trousers.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by TheStev]

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Acutally, your "proof", which is in reality just a news article, claims that the documents were related to the Millennium plot, not the 911 plot.

Actually, you missed the entire point, which is because of the incestuous relationships between high ranking officials investigating 9/11 and those, like Sandy Berger, who were involved in trying to prevent attacks like 9/11, there's no way to know what really happened re 9/11.

The Bush Justice Dept. let Berger off the hook without a trial, so we will never know what documents Berger actually took. CNN sites unnamed sources re the Millenium documents. Does this make it true?

Like you said, grandiose claims require grandiose evidence. Berger admits to taking documents, to originally lying about it, and to destroying documents. So he's ruled out as a credible source of what the documents were.

That leaves CNN to tell us what documents were taken? Based on what somebody close to Berger told CNN?

And you seriously think this is sufficient evidene to allow you to state unequivocally what documents were taken? Maybe you need to apply your same "grandiose evidence" standard to the government when they're trying to get you to believe *their* stories.

Since the documents he destroyed were not related to the 911 plot, the thin line you're stretching here breaks. Apples. Oranges. 911. Millennium plot.

The documents were related to Berger's testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission, which coincidentally (or not) was chaired by Berger's current business partner, Lee Hamilton.

And like I said, neither I, nor you, nor CNN knows what documents were actually taken. These documents, like much of the 9/11 evidence, have never been made public.

One has to ask the question, "What could have been so important about those documents that Sandy Berger risked going to jail to steal them and destroy them before testifying in front of the 9/11 Commission?"

Unless of course Berger knew ahead of time that his friends in high places would make sure he got off with a slap on the wrist.

And again, for future reference, here's what happened:

1) Berger selected to testify to 9/11 Commssion being the sole representative of the Clinton adminsitration.

2) Berger goes to "review" classified documents in preparation for his testimony and instead steals documents and cuts them up with scissors so NOBODY would ever know what those docs contained.

3) 9/11 Commish Lee Hamilton says, "Hey.. no harm, no foul," and Bush Justice Dpt. has Berger pay a token fine and do probation for stealing and destroying classified documents.

4) Berger invites Hamilton to join his multi-million international consulting company, joining former high-ranking Bush and Clinton administration cronies with ties to the intelligence community and defense industry.

All you're doing is linking articles, which may or may not be related. Its like playing "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon". Im sure that if I wanted to, I could implicate Santa Claus by doing the same thing.


I again plead, go get some real evidence. Oh wait, its all locked away...

Are you sure? ALL of the evidence is locked away in some Raiders of the Lost Ark type secret warehouse? Not one shred exists? Are you sure of that?


***What about participants? Hmm? Surely people remotely controlled those planes. Talked to their spouses about it, their buddies in the service…

***Speaking of planes, they don’t just materialize from space. They’re built. And building them costs money. Someplace there must be order forms from Boeing.

***Someone fired that cruise missile…..from a launching platform of some kind. Real flesh and blood people. People that aren’t in some box in a warehouse.

***Somewhere there are requisition forms for Tomahawks, and item and inventory logs. Losing a tomahawk leaves a paper trail, and its all public record.

***I don’t know how to rig a building the size of the WTC for demolition, do you? The list of people who can collapse not one building that size, but 2, into their own footprint cannot be that long. There may be 20 people in the world who can successfully do it. Who are they? Where were they? Did they travel? Will they provide credit card bill summaries to prove that they were elsewhere on the week leading up to 911?

***Who were the pilots who shot down flight 93? Where are they? Do they drink in excess?

***If they didn’t shoot it down, where are the passengers? Locked away? They need care, that takes people to do it. And food and water, which leave a paper trail. Were they killed? By whom? Who are the killers and can they lead you to the bodies?


I could go on and on and on. But I won’t continue to do your job for you. Go. Find evidence. Find proof. It is out there, you’re just not looking.

My opinion? (A general opinion and not necessarily indicative of anyone in particular) Its soooooo easy to say “OMG Bush killed those people for oil!!!” over the internet, and not actually DO anything, or provide anything. Conspiracy theorists are getting lazy, all they want to do is type, not actually prove anything. Its all about the E-ego, not the actual fact.

aecreate and Black_Fox...

Thanks!

I'm glad you found this research useful!

Just for fun, check out the Stonebridge website and see what they're into.