George W Bush Authorized 9/11 Attacks Says Government Insider!

reply to post by dariousg


ONLY ONE HOPES THIS COULD BE TRUE. That is the most rediculous statement I have ever heard. SO you hate bush I get it. And maybe there was a conspiracy, I for don't believe there was, however hoping that it was a conspiracy and the bush was behind is insane. Why would any HOPE that bush was behind it. You should hope and pray there was no conspiracy, even if there was one. Anyone who HOPES Bush was behind it needs to be committed.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


This case was dismissed in December of 2004 - old news. Apparently the citizens of the United States have no right to sue a '"sitting president."' Just check out the Wikipedia entry for Stanley Hilton.

This www.usdoj.gov...Department of Justice website gives quite a bit of information as to why a sitting president cannot be indicted for criminal activities.

I did a little digging to see what I could find on this topic and came up with the following:


Here is the original interview between Alex Jones and Stanley Hilton:
Alex Jones Interview 1: Stanley Hilton - MP3

Here is a follow up interview:
Alex Jones Interview 2: Stanley Hilton - MP3

Here is the actual court document which was filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California on August 13, 2004:
TAXPAYERS OF UNITED STATES OF CASE NO. CV-03-03927-SI


The following was the outcome of the above case:

The case was dismissed on Dec. 30, 2004, the judge ruling that US citizens do not have any right to sue a sitting President, based on the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity: that the lawsuit "presents a non-justiciable political question;" that the plaintiffs "lack standing to sue on behalf of all taxpayers;" that the plaintiffs "failed to establish the required causal connection between [their] alleged injuries and these defendants' conduct;" and that "deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment."

The OP pointed to GlobalResearch.ca as the source. I find that to be a very credible site, though I'm a bit surprised to see them hype a story which is nearly four years old. The Global Research article links back to an item from The Pakistan Daily posted on 05/20/08. It's a bit odd to me why this story is being disseminated as if it were current news, when this all happened so long ago. I was not able to establish a date for MP3 files above, but they were buried in the Infowars Archive. Why is this suddenly becoming "hot news"?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's important news, it's just that the timing of it seems odd.



[edit on 24-5-2008 by SystemiK]

Good find, that could explain why the was a military stand down. That was my biggest problem with 9/11/2001. Civilian airliners start falling out of the sky and lowering buildings and no military doesn't show, thats a big problem. Sorry alittle off topic, but yea his way of dealing with something that big was very odd. There have been people who are connected to Mr. Bush and his grand group of screwballs that have stated that he need a reason to get into Iraq. And that was his ticket in. I guess no one will ever really know. Watchs the Dems pull Osama outta a spider hole right before the elections.

Why does everyone keep insisting that there was no video of the first plane hitting the towers? I've heard Alex Jones use this argument a number of times. I clearly remember watching the first video below on September 11th as I'm sure many other people did as well. In fact there are a couple of other videos of the first plane attack as well. Alex Jones is only making himself look like an idiot when he continues to use such baseless arguments which have no bearing in fact.

youtube.com...
youtube.com...

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


To my knowledge, no one is saying there was not video of the 1st plane hitting the tower. What they are saying is that that footage was not aired on television until the next day.

The point being that bush could not possibly have seen the first strike on television that morning as he has stated because the video was not aired on the day of the attack.

Originally posted by SystemiK
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

 

To my knowledge, no one is saying there was not video of the 1st plane hitting the tower. What they are saying is that that footage was not aired on television until the next day.

The point being that bush could not possibly have seen the first strike on television that morning as he has stated because the video was not aired on the day of the attack.

Maybe.... but it depends "where" he said he saw it, he is the president after all, the video of that incident would probably come to him before us.

reply to post by _Phoenix_


Well, he stated that he saw it on a TV that was on at the school he was at that morning. Since that footage was not aired until the next day, it's pretty clear that he was either lying or he misspoke.

this thread states that president Bush .. authorized the attacks. I just want to know one thing...who did he authorize to do it???? simple question.. can anyone help me with that one???

okay this is ridiculus, just because he said he saw the first plane hit when in fact there was no video of that doesnt mean he was part of some conspiracie. He probably wasn't even thinking of which plane hit, it doesnt matter he just knew a plane hit and thats all that matters IMO. And as far as sayin he didn't seem concerned really about it, what did you want him to do, sit there and cry on the TV? He had a lot on him and boo hooing about it would have made him and America look weak.

Until we begin to analyze current and past events with a class perspective, gain class consciousness and understand patriotism for what it is, we cannot consider ourselves more than loyal servants. Television is way more effective than the lash, as are credit and debt not to mention what keeps us chasing the dangling carrot ("I' ll be a millionaire ...when my number comes in...if my mutual funds keep on like this I'll retire a mil...my house has almost doubled in value since last year.... main street investors...etc...etc.)
Is W responsible for 9/11? Did FDR betray his class or save it from extinction ?

All the best

the next Bill Gates

Originally posted by philjwolf
... I just want to know one thing...who did he authorize to do it.

If he did have foreknowledge, he's too clever to have 'authorized' anything in a recordable way. He's made a point of NOT signing things ... not ratifying things and "not joining".

In his own MIS-words from WikiQuotes at en.wikiquote.org...:List_of_Bushisms

QUOTE - "I didn't join the International Criminal Court because I don't want to put our troops in the hands of prosecutors from other nations. Look, if somebody has done some wrong in our military, we'll take care of it. We got plenty of capability of dealing with justice." -—Niceville, Fla., Aug. 10, 2004"

But his freudian slips and MIS-words (aka Bushisms) quoted on that same page also include this beauty, appropriate to this thread topic:

QUOTE - "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004"

edit - I can't make this JAVA editor work - try this way maybe, type http: and then copy and paste the following
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Transwiki:List_of_Bushisms

[edit on 24-5-2008 by Trexter Ziam]

Where's the document?

Has it been released?

If not, why?

An advisor to Bob Dole? Are you really serious? How credible can this guy be? What's next...Al Gore gets the Nobel? Oh crap!!!

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Why does everyone keep insisting that there was no video of the first plane hitting the towers? I've heard Alex Jones use this argument a number of times. I clearly remember watching the first video below on September 11th as I'm sure many other people did as well. In fact there are a couple of other videos of the first plane attack as well. Alex Jones is only making himself look like an idiot when he continues to use such baseless arguments which have no bearing in fact.

youtube.com...
youtube.com...

thanks for bringing that up! I have wondered about as well as I remember waking up to the video on 9/11 - however I do in fact strongly suspect that Bush WAS involved if only because of his ties to the Saudis....plus other odd inconsistencies in the official account....added to that a reading of "Project For a New American Century - Rebuilding America's Defenses" gives an eerie wishful thinking deja vu feel to the event....

by the way I heard an interview on NPR several years ago with Paul Wolfawitz - one of the main architects of PNAC and a neocon of prominence - in which he denied the existence of afore mentioned policy/position paper (which he helped author) and which at the time of the interview was widely available on the web at their very own website - now removed -......Sorry but proof or not proof these guys stink to high heaven....

Originally posted by realshanti

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Why does everyone keep insisting that there was no video of the first plane hitting the towers? I've heard Alex Jones use this argument a number of times. I clearly remember watching the first video below on September 11th as I'm sure many other people did as well. In fact there are a couple of other videos of the first plane attack as well. Alex Jones is only making himself look like an idiot when he continues to use such baseless arguments which have no bearing in fact.

youtube.com...
youtube.com...

thanks for bringing that up! I have wondered about as well as I remember waking up to the video on 9/11 - however I do in fact strongly suspect that Bush WAS involved if only because of his ties to the Saudis....plus other odd inconsistencies in the official account....added to that a reading of "Project For a New American Century - Rebuilding America's Defenses" gives an eerie wishful thinking deja vu feel to the event....

by the way I heard an interview on NPR several years ago with Paul Wolfawitz - one of the main architects of PNAC and a neocon of prominence - in which he denied the existence of afore mentioned policy/position paper (which he helped author) and which at the time of the interview was widely available on the web at their very own website - now removed -......Sorry but proof or not proof these guys stink to high heaven....

Sorry, but as is said earlier AnymousPost brings nothing UP. The video of the first plane did not air yet when Bush claimed to have seen it.

Second, the second video seem a manufactured one. It seems that there are 2 pictures in it .1 with a moving object (rest is still, like the cars) and then a explosion photo with a slightly different ratio, which creates a jump. On the last one the cars are in a slightly different position which creates the illusion of actual movement. For the rest is a strange one second snip of a video, which does not give it much credits.

What I am more interested is the current status of Stanley. What is he doing and saying. Is he still on this subject?

[edit on 25-5-2008 by Pjotr]

That is correct. What you watched all day was the second plane hitting the tower. The first plane was not caught one any news cameras that morning.

In fact, when I was eating breakfast, they were just zoomed in on the first tower that was hit because that's all they had. They still thought it was an accident.

Has anyone seen the movie "Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime"
This movie tells about what we are discussing in this thread. It is a REAL EYE OPENER.

BTW just google the movie and watch it.

If this guy was so credible and his story a fact, then why would he go to alex jones? He is not credible and reaches only the internet audience as far as global. Why would no networks pick this story up if this Hilton fella is so credible? Sure US stations might be currupt but why not BBC, why not the assosiated press, why not CBC?

my guess is this guy is full of crap or he is suffering from some sort of medical conditon that is making him deliriouse.

I think the time delay could be attributed to gathering sufficient evidence.

First, it must become clear that a crime of some sort has occurred.

Then one has to accumulate the evidence of the crime.

Then one must find the perpetrator.

Then one must find evidence that links the perpetrator to the actual crime.



Some cold case murders take decades to be solved.

Of course, when the supposed crime is on a national scale, it can be nearly impossible to bring forth justice using a system within that nation.

BUT....
If he were to find his way out of America and into certain other countries, he might find a much more receptive professional audience willing to review the evidence.

Assuming that his version of events is correct, I would advise him to leave and not return. Or else he would face death by "natural causes". A system capable of suppressing such huge national murder would not hesitate to kill bearers of evidence against itself.

Mr. Anonymous, I DO hope this is true, but Not for its sickening nature and the evil it would take to undertake such murder.

I hope it is true so that we can understand what happened. With understanding can come correctly guided action. Without appropriate understanding, the masses can be guided by false motivation based upon false understanding.


If all of this turns out to be true... then we could very well be on our way to another "national disaster" or "terrorist attack" via the same group of power-hungry individuals.
If such event happens, Mr Bush will likely hold is office for life.