digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Government Insider: Bush Authorized 911 Attacks

infowars.com — “This (9/11) was all planned. This was a government-ordered operation. Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder.” –Stanley Hilton

show profanity settings
expand all
  • ssn697, on 05/21/2008, -18/+8This "lawsuit" was thrown out nearly four years ago. The supposed "plaintiff" in the lawsuit sued Stanley Hilton for including him, and making up claims in his name. The suit was thrown out, with ZERO "incriminating documents" produced.

    The judge even said this guy didn't produce even a casual connection.

    Why is this being recycled? Facts don't matter?
    • digitalhair, on 05/21/2008, -4/+18
      The simple fact of the matter is that there are a handful of users on digg that always seem to be the first to hit these submissions, intent on dismissing new evidence about any hint of exploitation and wrongdoing on the part of this government, and it's always the SAME people.

      Even if what ssn697 has posted is true (and I will just assume that it is semantically true but probably not contextually truthful since these operatives have a habit of omitting links to the obscure information they possess), shouldn't the American People be aware of the details of his lawsuit, and the context of the court's conclusions?
      Why not submit the news coverage of the court's conclusion to throw out the case, then include a link to the submission in your comment?

      Another issue I have with groups that defend government before truth and liberty is that they regularly assume that Americans are not skeptical of our judicial system and expect us to think that this man's case has no merit because the media, a court, a judge, or Bush said so.

      Am I supposed to trust that the decisions of the Supreme Court of our country are always based on the preservation of my inalienable rights and those of other citizens simply because the appointed judges take an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States??? I don't like this, but the answer is NO.

      Here's a link to a clip I saw on The Daily Show with John Stewart that should help you understand my position: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/30/daily-sho ...

      So who's credible??? I evaluate this by asking myself about both sides of this argument: "who are they, and what do they have to gain from this?"

      These perpetrators have a profound understanding of the economics of human behavior, and we keep falling right into line with their expectations. Just click on ssn697's username above to check out his profile and see how hard he's been working to undermine the one candidate that openly lays out his desire to break up big government and its corporate monopoly on freedom, and this candidate has never even implied that 9/11 might have been an inside job. What does he do? He criticizes big government fraud and promotes freedom above all else.

      I find it highly suspicious that the same group of users that continuously try to undermine him is the same group that tries to dismiss new information about the official 9/11 story propogated by the big government monopoly in question.
      • digitalhair, on 05/21/2008, -3/+2http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/30/daily-sho ...

        or append

        w-the-loveable-and-charming-antonin-scalia/

        to the URL that somehow got cut short - (cut and paste error?)
      • ssn697, on 05/21/2008, -10/+8So, because I posted the truth, I am a defender of the government? I would say that makes me a defender of truth and liberty. If you want to live where lies can be continually passed on, you are the shill for the government.

        Who is credible? It has been four years. Where are the documents he claimed to have?

        It is VERY telling that you are upset that I told the truth, dismissing your lies, then you go on a long rant, totally off the subject of the post, rather than saying "sorry, didn't know that."

        Yes click on my profile. See where I blast the Bush administration. See where I doubt the government. Also see where I don't just accept *****, like you.

        That is the difference between us: I question everyone, and everything. You beg to be led by the nose, ignoring the truth when it doesn't fit your preconceived view of the world.
        • digitalhair, on 05/21/2008, -4/+6all I'm asking is for a link to why you believe what you do

          ...because otherwise, I can bet that you're counting on people just taking your word for it instead of checking up on your comments. just link to information from now on, that's all I'm saying.

          freedom of information, baby... just one link per comment... help me understand
        • ssn697, on 05/21/2008, -8/+7No, you weren't asking for a link, you went on a rant, when you didn't like that you dugg up a 4 year old ***** story.

          And what, you can't do a google search on your own? You are that pathetic? Talk about counting on people to take someones word. You dugg up a 4 year old, debunked story! Are you really so lame, that you can't google Stanley Hilton on your own? ***** go to the wiki page, go to the bottom, and look at the ***** references. No WONDER you fall for this *****. How stupid can you be?

          I am not going to do your work for you. Cry like a baby all you want. Grow the ***** up, stop being led by the nose, and actually pay attention. I stopped posting in these truther threads, then the idiocy (like this *****) dragged me back in.

          You want to stay in the dark, and ignore reason, fine. Do it. I am not your mommy, leading you around the puddle. Sack up.

          Here is a quote that fits you:

          "He is indebted to his memory for his jests and to his imagination for his facts."
  • KMye, on 05/21/2008, -6/+10Seems to be from a new Pakistani Islamist news website that just started last week. Here's another great one from the site, "World Without Super-Powers: http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-americas/377 ...

    Interesting that Jones would reprint a four-year old interview just because someone else reprinted it from him, and A) not acknowledge that it was 4 years old, B) not acknowledge the original text came from his own website, and C) instead source it as from an outside source (Daily Pakistan). Must have been a slow news day with nothing else to put his freedom-ads next to. (I just picked up his 7 disc "Infowars Classics" pack for just 100 bucks! What savings!)
    • digitalhair, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3the article you linked to says nothing about Hilton. go to the article, hit control+F, then type Hilton. nothing.
  • sheasie, on 05/22/2008, -2/+6Ok so here are the options: Muslim terrorists surprise attack the US by hijacking two planes (using nothing but boxcutters), fly these two planes into two buildings, and three buildings naturally collapse (vs.) Muslim terrorists are "allowed" to hijack two planes, fly them into two buildings, and controlled demolitions bring down three buildings.

    Look, I can definitely see how a lot of people (myself included) would *want* to believe the former, but the latter is simply more likely.
    • Lenoxus, on 06/12/2008, -1/+0But why were the explosives necessary? I've never heard a single 9/11 truther explain that part (not that I don't think no explanation is possible). If two planes are going to crash into two buildings, isn't that enough explosions and mayhem and death to accomplish whatever the heck it's supposed to accomplish? Anyway, what if the bombs had gone off at the wrong time?

      What I also don't follow is why "using nothing but boxcutters" is so hard to believe. It's not like they could have used assault rifles… It seems like that particular argument comes out of this strange notion along the lines that "The US government is so big, and Al-Qaeda (or whoever) is so small, and in a bunch of caves… how could Al-Qaeda possibly fool the government?"
  • almonds646, on 09/11/2008, -2/+1From Wikipedia:
    ----
    Hilton maintains a strong scholarly interest in fascist and totalitarian social systems, particularly that of the Third Reich under Adolf Hitler, and in charismatic political leaders. On August 20, 1981 Hilton interviewed Albert Speer, the armaments minister and chief architect of Nazi Germany, under Adolf Hitler. Speer acted as the latter's confidante and armaments minister. Hilton was the last person to interview Speer. In the interview, Speer praised Der Fuhrer as "brilliant and clever except when 'The Demons' got to him."

    Hilton has been an ardent supporter of animal rights and maintains that animal rights should be officially recognized in law courts, that killing any animal should be permanently banned by law, and that owners and sponsors of neglected and abused animals, and lawyers representing such creatures, should be given legal standing to sue perpetrators of animal abuse in a court of law, and to ban any killing of any animal under any circumstances. He has called meat eating "more noxious than tobacco smoking" and has called for a total ban on all meat products.

    Hilton has also called for a total ban on all tobacco products.
    ----

    Perhaps all of that studying of totalitarianism has affected him for the worst?
    • Waiting2awake, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2Probably, take for instance I keep hearing these "physicists" talking about time and space and such - but clearly their studying of these effects have affected them and thus, we shouldn't take what they are saying seriously....

      and don't get me started on doctors, and judges.....damn know it alls.

      ;-)
      • almonds646, on 09/11/2008, -0/+1huh?

        what I got from that is the implication that I suggested he not be taken seriously on this topic, when I in no way suggested that.

        I was, however, clarifying that the guy is Al Gore on steroids, and quite frankly I would prefer Bush flying airplanes into buildings and the occasional chicken nugget over his alternative utopia of the nanny-state banning all meat products and other personal, individual vices of his.
  • sheasie, on 05/25/2008, -1/+2She was long-recognized as the "inevitable candidate". So the only reasonable explanation for her loss is "sexism" ??? (Give me a break.) The fact that she has a vagina instead of a penis does not make her immune from running a mismanaged campaign (or suffering from sloppy arrogance). She was the favorite candidate who lost to an extraordinary candidate. Deal with it.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.