Was 911 terrorists or our own government?

[Ldawg]

I gotta hear who you think did this now

Well there are four, five or six good candidate's .... start with 1) Mafia (Bobbie & Jack were bad for business) 2) Castro ...
Who the fvck knows .... Oswald was probably a patsy.

Kb - just in general you don't shallow all this spoon feed pablum that is passed off as reality do you ?

I don't have answers but I do have lots of questions. Do you think the common man has any real control of anything that matters ?
What I believe is that politicians don't control shit .... they are controlled. The WORLD is controlled by some Dark Hearted , sinister MoFo's who work Hard to control the World's Energy, Monetary Sys's and to maintain control over the Sheeple . We the common man, have been played for Century's by groups, consortium's, be it Illuminati types, Templar Knights or WTFE, other than the common man/sheep/resource .... these entities have been playing three dimensional Chess while we, the little people have played one dimensional checkers.
Take a day off, maybe this coming Tues. 9/11 ... grab a twelve pack and start looking at Google, youtube or wherever you like. Read though some of these theories/ideas , watch some videos. Somewhere between the lies on the left and the lies on the right, therein lies the TRUTH !
I strongly believe that the Real World is more like the Matrix (smoke and mirrors) than the Cleavers (have Spark explain that to you).
Look for the Rumsfield Unknown Unknown's . Meaning that we are so controlled, that most of us are totally oblivious to the extent of it, let alone by WHO !

Start with these ... or find you own topic .

Scroll down to the right ... pick a topic ------>
Who Controls The World? Illuminati, Jesuits | Conspiracy Reality TV - Documentaries and Videos


Newdawn .... if you don't want to read the whole article scroll down to "Interlocking Structure of Elite Control".
I think it was Rothchild who was quoted as saying "the whole world is filled with garbage..... human garbage"!

Who Really Controls the World? | New Dawn : The World's Most Unusual Magazine


Happy hunting .... don't be a Sheeple ask questions and look in the Dark Corners.

[Ldawg]

Kb - crib notes

Cleavers (have Spark explain that to you)]

Similar to Andy Griffith's Idealistic time when the American Dream was still possible.

"Leave It to Beaver" (1957) - Plot Summary

[Spark]

Drew Peterson, not sure if everyone knows who he is. He was arrested and convicted for killing his 3rd wife Kathy (Savio) . His wife was found dead in her bathtub years ago. Then his 4th wife, Stacy, came up missing. Of course he had something to do with it seeing he was a Bolingbrook cop and had connections on covering up the murder. He is from my area here in Illinois.

This guys is a cocky, arrogant egotistical jerk. No one liked him. He sat in Jail for 3.5 years and never saw the inside of a court room. 3.5 years and then he finally went to court. All circumstantial evidence. The state did not have an eye witness so what do they do?? They come up with a NEW LAW called Drew Law.

I swear I am not making this up. The government comes up with a new law so they can convict this guy that sat in jail for 3.5 years before going to court on all circumstantial evidence. Oh no, our government is not shady.



About 13 months after Drew Peterson's fourth wife vanished in October 2007 and five months before he was jailed in May 2009 on charges he murdered his third wife, a bill crafted by former state Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi and Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow was passed into law.

The law allowed judges to admit hearsay evidence from witnesses who were made unavailable to testify, so long as the statements were deemed reliable.

Eight months after Peterson's arrest, the new law was put into use during a landmark, month-long hearing to determine what, if any, hearsay evidence could be used at Peterson’s murder trial. Dissatisfied with the decision by Judge Stephen White to prohibit eight of 14 hearsay statements presented to him, Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow brought the matter to the Third District Appellate Court.

Nearly two years later, the appellate judges overturned White’s ruling and gave Glasgow all his hearsay statements.

But in winning his appeal, Glasgow had to ask the court to disregard the law he helped create in favor of the state’s common law, which doesn’t include the reliability requirement, a fact not lost on the appellate judges.

“This change in the State's position is puzzling,” Judge William Holdridge wrote in the appellate court’s decision.

“If the legislature intended to facilitate the successful prosecution of criminal defendants who intentionally prevent witnesses from testifying (as the statute’s legislative history suggests), it is unclear why it passed a statute that imposed restrictions on prosecutors that are not found in the common law,” Holdridge wrote. “Regardless, after passing a more restrictive statute, one would expect the State either to enforce the statute as written or act to repeal the statute, not urge the courts to ignore it.”

And Holdridge wasn’t the only one to find Glasgow’s change in course puzzling.

“There’s irony, foremost,” said Harold J. Krent, the dean of IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, who noted that Glasgow was “actually potentially undercutting the power of prosecutors” when he passed his new law.

“The common law’s power was broader,” Krent said.

But Glasgow’s spokesman, Charles B. Pelkie, pointed out that the new law was put together and passed before the state supreme court rejected an appeal by Naperville murderer Eric Hanson, who shot his mother and father in the head and bludgeoned to death his sister and brother-in-law.

Hanson appealed his conviction on the grounds that hearsay cannot be used as evidence under the common law. The state supreme court denied this, upholding Hanson’s conviction and giving Glasgow the grounds for his appeal of Judge White’s ruling.

The Hanson decision came less than a month before Peterson’s trial was to start and a more than a year and a half after the bill sponsored by Wilhelmi, D-Joliet, passed into law.

“If it wasn’t for the supreme court’s decision on Hanson, there would have been no appeal and the trial would have been over a long time ago,” Pelkie said.

Regardless, criminal defense attorney and Chicago-Kent Professor Daniel Coyne expected the appellate court’s decision on the Peterson case to be challenged at some point.

“It’s the first step in going back to the (state) supreme court,” he said of the ruling handed down Thursday.

Peterson’s attorneys can appeal to the state supreme court but it does not seem likely that they will. For one thing, Peterson attorney Joseph “Shark” Lopez questioned the importance of the hearsay statements and the very existence of prosecution evidence. For another, Drew Peterson has already spent close to three years in jail while he awaits the start of his trial.

“Sometimes you have to be patient to exercise your rights,” Coyne said.

Whether the defense appeals or not, Krent believes Peterson’s team has a chance to prevail at trial.

“They have a real shot at winning,” he said. “I don’t think anyone would be surprised if Drew is acquitted.”

For now, Glasgow has his hearsay evidence, but at the cost of urging the appellate court to ignore his new law, and the appellate court agreeing to do so.

“It’s just so weird,” Krent said. “The (appellate) court has made a dead letter of Drew’s Law.”

******************************


Prosecutors relied on normally barred secondhand hearsay statements to convict former Illinois police officer Drew Peterson of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Illinois passed a law in 2008, dubbed "Drew's Law," making the evidence admissible at trials in rare circumstances. Witnesses at Peterson's first-degree murder trial testified about what Savio told them before she died in 2004 and what his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, said before she vanished in 2007.

———

"'I could kill you and make it look like an accident.'"

— The words of Drew Peterson to Savio as he put a knife to her throat, according to Savio friend Kristin Anderson.

———

"She said that Drew told her he was going to kill her, she was not going to make it to the divorce settlement, she would not get his pension or his children."

— Anna Doman testifying about what Savio, her sister, told her six weeks before she was found dead.

———

"'Why don't you just die?'"

— The words of Drew Peterson after he broke into Savio's house, grabbed her by the throat and pinned her down a year before she was found dead, according to Savio friend, Mary Parks.

———

"Kathy told me that her husband ... had told her that he could kill her and make her disappear."

— Mary Parks testifying about what Savio said Drew Peterson told her.

———

"She wanted to know if the fact that he killed Kathy (Savio) could be used against him."

— Divorce attorney Harry Smith testifying about a conversation with Stacy Peterson days before she disappeared in 2007. She told him she was convinced Drew Peterson killed Savio three years earlier.

[Ldawg]

We haven't EVEN touched on UFO's and Alien Abductions yet

[BigWeiner]

Documents show the U.S. was given more warnings about potential terrorist attacks in the weeks leading up to 9/11, writes Vanity Fair contributing editor Kurt Eichenwald in a New York Times op-ed.

The documents predate the presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, which said, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

“The administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed,” he wrote. “In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.”

The direct warnings to Bush, he writes, date back to the spring of 2001. On May 1, the CIA told the White House that there was “a group presently in the United States” that was planning an attack. On June 22, a daily briefing described the attack as "imminent." Administration officials, however, dismissed the warnings, saying that Osama bin Laden was merely feigning an attack to distract the U.S. from efforts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

“Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day,” Eichenwald wrote. “In response, the CIA prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.”

Briefings on June 29, July 1, and July 24 carried similar warnings. On July 9, Eichenwald writes, one official suggested staff members of the CIA Counterterrorism Center “put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place.”

“[The Bush administration] got this information and they weren't looking at it in the context of here's this huge threat that's developed,” Eichenwald said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “Look at what the Pentagon said, ‘What's the nation state that's backing them? Oh, we think it's Iraq.’ And so, it was a frame of mind that was not unreasonable for them to have because they hadn't been getting the intelligence until very recently about the evolution and change of al-Qaida.”

Eichenwald, however, was criticized by former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, for writing the piece.

“I think this is incredibly unfortunate,” he said on Morning Joe, adding that, "I think is incredibly unfair and a disservice to history.”

Eichenwald wrote a book, “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars,” describing the intelligence briefings and actions taken by the Bush administration before and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

[kbsooner21]

More stupid shit that some dumbfuck is putting out there to try and make a name for himself.


What exactly is this supposed to prove

[kbsooner21]

Oh, an attack was imminent...

What was he supposed to do, shut down the country? Put everyone on mandatory house arrest? Throw everyone into a panic?

I've read a lot of dumb shit, but this make take the cake...

[ToDaClub]

Oh, an attack was imminent...

What was he supposed to do, shut down the country? Put everyone on mandatory house arrest? Throw everyone into a panic?

I've read a lot of dumb shit, but this make take the cake...

make take the cake????

[kbsooner21]

Fuck! I made myself dumber reading that stupid shit.

May take the cake

[vols fan]

Documents show the U.S. was given more warnings about potential terrorist attacks in the weeks leading up to 9/11, writes Vanity Fair contributing editor Kurt Eichenwald in a New York Times op-ed.

The documents predate the presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, which said, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

“The administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed,” he wrote. “In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.”

The direct warnings to Bush, he writes, date back to the spring of 2001. On May 1, the CIA told the White House that there was “a group presently in the United States” that was planning an attack. On June 22, a daily briefing described the attack as "imminent." Administration officials, however, dismissed the warnings, saying that Osama bin Laden was merely feigning an attack to distract the U.S. from efforts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

“Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day,” Eichenwald wrote. “In response, the CIA prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.”

Briefings on June 29, July 1, and July 24 carried similar warnings. On July 9, Eichenwald writes, one official suggested staff members of the CIA Counterterrorism Center “put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place.”

“[The Bush administration] got this information and they weren't looking at it in the context of here's this huge threat that's developed,” Eichenwald said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “Look at what the Pentagon said, ‘What's the nation state that's backing them? Oh, we think it's Iraq.’ And so, it was a frame of mind that was not unreasonable for them to have because they hadn't been getting the intelligence until very recently about the evolution and change of al-Qaida.”

Eichenwald, however, was criticized by former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, for writing the piece.

“I think this is incredibly unfortunate,” he said on Morning Joe, adding that, "I think is incredibly unfair and a disservice to history.”

Eichenwald wrote a book, “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars,” describing the intelligence briefings and actions taken by the Bush administration before and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

So you pick the day were supposed to be remembering all the victims and families to post your propaganda bullshit. Disgraceful as fuck if you ask me!!!

[BigWeiner]

So you pick the day were supposed to be remembering all the victims and families to post your propaganda bullshit. Disgraceful as fuck if you ask me!!!

It's headline news, take it up with them. I'm remembering the people that died to today, and wishing it didn't happen. It shouldn't have happened, someone needs to investigate.

[BigWeiner]

I don't think Bush is responsible for 9/11 either, I just think we need to do everything we can to make sure nothing like it happens again.

[vols fan]

It's headline news, take it up with them. I'm remembering the people that died to today, and wishing it didn't happen. It shouldn't have happened, someone needs to investigate.

Headline news isn't a member here so your the one who posted it. It's been 11 years and I'm sure its been investigated as much as the JFK asassination has been. We know your a Dem and love Obama. Let me ask you something? If all this propaganda shit you post is true and the government did it,then why the hell did Obama take so much credit for catching Bin Laden? If Bush and the government put bombs in the building and knew it was going to happen then why the hell hasnt Obama gone after Bush or the government. You know why? Cause we got attacked by some fucked up terrorist and you tree hugging fucks want to blame us. For one day stop being a god damn democrat and be a damn American and remember all who died.Thank God people like you werent on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. "Let's Blame" would have been the last words spoken instead of some strong citizens with a backbone that said 'Lets roll"!!!!!!!

[BigWeiner]

Headline news isn't a member here so your the one who posted it. It's been 11 years and I'm sure its been investigated as much as the JFK asassination has been. We know your a Dem and love Obama. Let me ask you something? If all this propaganda shit you post is true and the government did it,then why the hell did Obama take so much credit for catching Bin Laden? If Bush and the government put bombs in the building and knew it was going to happen then why the hell hasnt Obama gone after Bush or the government. You know why? Cause we got attacked by some fucked up terrorist and you tree hugging fucks want to blame us. For one day stop being a god damn democrat and be a damn American and remember all who died.Thank God people like you werent on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. "Let's Blame" would have been the last words spoken instead of some strong citizens with a backbone that said 'Lets roll"!!!!!!!

Haha, youre smart. I never said anything about Bush being responsible, that's just you trying to lump me in with some group. That would be like me saying you're a racist, when we know that's far from the truth. I don't love Obama, but he's much better than the alternative.

[BigWeiner]

Let me guess, you've traveled around the world, and have lots of experiences to draw your knowledge from