Bush & Cheney knew about 9/11 months before says whistlelower indicted under the Patriot Act

reply to post by aboutface


The only thing I found quite ridiculous, and it needs to be mentioned is the fact the interviewer is asking the blond woman: "Do you think Edward Snowden revelations could be considered as the most important ones from a whistleblower".

What is really the point of trying to compare whistleblowers claims? I mean, as long as some information are revealed it is what matters, be it incriminating somebody well known or not.

The interview in general seemed good, but this question was going a little bit too far in my opinion, pay particular attention to the blond woman reaction to it, the look on her face, negative impact can be clearly seen, but still we all do mistakes (learnings).





Thruthseek3r

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by boncho
The idea that 9.11 was concocted and carried out by numbers and numbers of people in the government, and that it was entirely covered-up, or the rest of the "theories" out there... Are pretty hard to swallow.

I once thought that too, but then again they have thousands of people working on spying on millions of people, and only now has one really shown the American people that it's happening.

There are thousands of people, right now, continuing to watch and spy on millions of people, even though they know that those people are innocent, and even though they are intelligent enough to see how this is going, and even though they know it breaches the constitution.

When you are confronted by a system that is so out of control and totalitarian, where you can be locked up for daring to leave and talk about it, would you speak out and risk your life and those of everyone you love?

I'm not so sure any more. The revelations of the last month have made me question just who knew what about 9/11, and whether they "accidentally" missed the warnings and allowed it to happen to give permission for war.

Well said, Snowden has fully opened the doors that were already creaking. He has exposed the Patriot Act alone for what it is, (although I do wish he would talk about that in a more singular fashion) which impinges on just about everything you say or do, and does not need to be about anything in particular in interpretation, and is a law made after the fact, presuming there ever was a fact to begin with.

reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness

I think you really need to go there and do a bit of looking.

Susan Lindauer probably only got out of incarceration by a benevolent judge, who deemed her unfit but likely knew otherwise, hence the, "useful idiot"

reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness


She spent 6 years in prison held without due process. I don't think she is singing the government's tune. The useful idiot part speaks of her character. Useful idiots are used for compartmentalized operations. They are only told so much, and they truly believe what they are told. The reason for using them is the opposition can't tell they are lying, because they don't actually know anything and they don't ask questions.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Thanks, I'll definitely check it out.

reply to post by boncho

The idea that 9.11 was concocted and carried out by numbers and numbers of people in the government, and that it was entirely covered-up, or the rest of the "theories" out there... Are pretty hard to swallow. However, a few key people knowing what was happening and making certain moves here and there to profit from it, and even perhaps aide it in some respect, is very plausible.

maybe you separate the two...but whoever committed 9/11 and those who knew about it and let it happen...not much difference in my book....guilty just the same...and would try them as if they did it themsleves.

Especially, if she is right...and it was the 3 most highly ranked people in the government...

I find this video easy to swallow...because it fits so perfectly in to what I think already.

If she is right, 99% of the truth movements claims are wrong. Prior knowledge by a select group of people seems to be the only realistic conspiracy theory to me. Though this woman does not provide any evidence, and she does come across as a bit crazy. Besides, prior knowledge does not automatically means deliberate negligence. Its not a very strong case that she presents regarding 911 prior knowledge.

reply to post by -PLB-


I would love to read her book to see what more she has to say. However, having been subjected to the cruelty of the Patriot Act, I'm sure she is careful to not step into areas that might once again get her into serious trouble.

reply to post by aboutface


I've had questions about this subject for years. Especially after tripping across this.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

I can believe what she's says about 9/11. Was it an inside job? I don't think so. Was it allowed to happen? Perhaps it was.

How did she learn that Bush and Cheney knew about 911 months before it was carried out? Did she read it on the internet?

Regardless she highlights the dangers of the Patriot Act. One law for most of us, so we do not get upset and another law for those the establishment sees as a threat to themselves in the information age.

How can the PA and VA be applied to Americans? Doesnt it deprive them of their right to a fair trial?

Nah, no one in the US knew it was coming, except for.....................

1. G W Bush...........for obvious reasons.
2. Dick Cheney [took over NORAD when they were doing the exact training drills to add to the confusion [which really means, to slow the response of the response team that had a 100% record before 9/11].
3. The alphabet agencies that were on the scene at the Pentagon before the "plane" hit, and clearing debris [also known as evidence in a court].
4. The people who sold their stock options in the 2 airlines used in the days before 9/11. All selling at a high price, and then when the planes hit the twin towers, the airline stock price dropped dramatically. Either they are they luckiest investors in history, or its a clear case of insider trading [illegal] and prior knowledge of the attacks.
5. The "laws" that were already written before the attacks, that then were introduced based on the attack. Almost as if the new laws were waiting for the right event. "A new Pearl harbour" is the term I believe used !
6. Larry Silverstein, just like with the investors that cleaned up financially with the airline stocks, he made a LOT of money from this "terrorist attack" through an insurance policy. Not to mention the "pull it" comment in regards to Building 7.
7. Sections of the mainstream media, especially those that reported Building 7 coming down approx.20 minutes before it came down. But that was probably just a lucky guess, like the airline stock selling, and the insurance payout of the WTC complex that had "extreme acts of terrorism" written into it.
8. Frank Lowy, business partner of Larry Silverstein and also benefactor of insurance pay out.
9. Aaron Russo, quoting a Rockefeller family member about the 9/11 plan prior to 9/11.
10. The alphabet agencies that collected the video footage from surrounding businesses at the Pentagon immediately after the attacks.. Why would you confiscate evidence that would confirm their official lie [story] ? The footage of the planes hitting the towers in now the most replayed event in TV history, yet the object that hit the Pentagon, despite it being the most security-wise photographed building in the world, has only appeared in a 3 second clip, which is so blurry that no one could say for sure that it is a plane.


So no one knew in advance that is was going to happen, yet there's 10 examples straight off the top of my head to show that many knew of the attacks prior to the event. But most just dismiss it as "conspiracy theory", while then believing in an official story that has got that many holes and contradictions in it, that it defies all logic to even consider believing the official lie [story].
An 'official story' is nothing more then the story the officials want you to believe. Just because it comes from an official, does NOT mean it IS the official story. When people can get their heads around that, then maybe the 'official stories will remain as just that, a story from an official. But people seem to like stories, how else would explain Bush and Co. still not being in jail over 10 years later ?
The story gets them to sleep at night, but the truth may keep them awake, so its accept the lies, go to bed and face a new day of more lies.

reply to post by AussieDingus

Thanks for the refresher.

In light of recent revelations about the NSA and spying on everyone without any accountability, being a conspiracy theorist should no longer be a derogatory term, especially as we were proven right.

The government has been shown to be scheming and lying all over the place. It's time 9/11 were re-examined with an objective of exposing the truth, beginning with the alphabet agencies, imo.

reply to post by Merinda


If you watch the video, she explains how she informed the chief of defense as well as her cousin who was highly placed in he WH. She said she informed them in April 2001, five months before the towers fell.

reply to post by -PLB-

If she is right, 99% of the truth movements claims are wrong

Ooooor...you can see it as...99 % of the truth movement knew something was not right. When something is not right...and evidence is lacking or being suppressed...people speculate. That's what we do....

Besides, prior knowledge does not automatically means deliberate negligence

No? Really?

So the president and the vice president...maybe knew in advance...that the biggest attack on US is about to happen, and they let it happen...?

You are right...it's not negligence...it's treason. The very word they like to use so much for whistleblowers.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
Ooooor...you can see it as...99 % of the truth movement knew something was not right. When something is not right...and evidence is lacking or being suppressed...people speculate. That's what we do....

You are actually one of the few people I have met that seems to be a truther and openly admits that his belief is based on speculation. Still, I will need evidence in order to be convinced, not speculation.

No? Really?

So the president and the vice president...maybe knew in advance...that the biggest attack on US is about to happen, and they let it happen...?

You are right...it's not negligence...it's treason. The very word they like to use so much for whistleblowers.

And what if they are informed about imminent attacks on a daily basis? And what if they did took proper action but for reasons not in their power it was not stopped anyway?

You make it sound a bit too simple.

reply to post by boncho

The idea that 9.11 was concocted and carried out by numbers and numbers of people in the government, and that it was entirely covered-up, or the rest of the "theories" out there... Are pretty hard to swallow.

What "cover-up" are you talking about? The only cover-up was NIST coming with an "explanation" to the towers' collapse. But that is not difficult. When they are presented with information claiming to contain all the relevant facts and asked to come out with an explanation, there will be some at NIST who will be willing to do that.

However, a few key people knowing what was happening and making certain moves here and there to profit from it, and even perhaps aide it in some respect, is very plausible.

That is much more difficult to accomplish in an event of this scale. They would be risking everything. There are no risks involved when it is an official operation.

reply to post by -PLB-

And what if they are informed about imminent attacks on a daily basis? And what if they did took proper action but for reasons not in their power it was not stopped anyway?

And that is not speculation?

reply to post by -PLB-

You are actually one of the few people I have met that seems to be a truther and openly admits that his belief is based on speculation. Still, I will need evidence in order to be convinced, not speculation.

Of course you do...we all do...even truthers...and of course...majority of stuff about 9/11 as a conspiracy...is speculation. If we hard undebunkable proof...we wouldn't be here talking about this. But, I'm an amateur observer of human behavior...I know...we people lie...every day. Powerful people lie even more, in order to stay in power.

It's pretty certain, even to people that don't believe in 9/11 conspiracy...that Bush is...well...satan's little helper. He was caught lying many times...he and Chaney refused to contribute to the commission's investigation in an open and forth coming manner. They are...for the most part...big busyness...and their motives are questionable at least.

And after Iraq...how can you really trust anything they say ? You have to doubt...if you are rationally thinking being. The evidence may be scarce...but there is plenty of weird and unexplainable circumstances...enough to rise flags.

Seeing how we are being lied every day (latest example - didn't NSA shamelessly lied to the Congress about the surveilance...) I find it really naive from people that you would believe so blindly...that they are righteous in this.

Sure...maybe they lie all the time...and we know it...but no...not about 9/11...they wouldn't dare. Keep telling yourself that...your leaders didn't sell you out...because they care so much for you. I realize...it's an easier living that way.

And what if they are informed about imminent attacks on a daily basis? And what if they did took proper action but for reasons not in their power it was not stopped anyway?

"for Reasons not in their power" - The 3 most highly ranked people in the government ? The commander and chief of the US army ? The president of the United States ? but foremost...a big busyness owner...

Well man...I may have no concrete evidence of a conspiracy...but you are desperately grasping at straws.

Anyway...incompetence defense...just doesn't fly with me...but it's the best bet they have...and they are sticking to it.

reply to post by Observor

That is much more difficult to accomplish in an event of this scale. They would be risking everything.

Hm...you would think...but than...one must ask himself..how come it was never made public knowledge...who made put options on certain airlines stocks plummeting...days before the event. Who did it, and why aren't we allowed to know about it? Who is being defended from the public eye? Someone obviously powerful...now that's a conspiracy in itself...and a really beautiful example...how money comes before lives and before truth.

This person/group who did it...obviously didn't think it was risking...

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

This person/group who did it...obviously didn't think it was risking...

Of course, they didn't think they were risking anything. And they were right. They didn't think they were risking anything because, they knew it was an official operation. If it were not so and just a few individuals trying to benefit off prior knowledge, they would have been caught and would have lost everything.