The Israeli Criminals Behind the NSA Spy Scandal

[eots]

Enemy, are you ‘english’ ?? usually NATIVE Americans like me wouldn’t write the date like that. It’s definitely not my first instinct. The 11TH of September. Hmmm. Putting the date before the month, that was your first instinct ? that’s the ENGLISH way chum(p)ley….

September 11th would not rhyme with remember dummy...its my re-write of a poem about Guy Fawkes ...who was English...it was remember remember the 5th of november

 

[dilloduck]

An the USA has never ever spied on our Allies..............

You guys are so funny, and so disconnected.........

Unfortunately they have spied on us.

 

[holston]

I bet your a huge pathetic ***** in real life! A gigantic loser that avoids interacting with others at all costs!
Just saying!

Are you the guy who is obsessed with cocks that sends me private messages?
Just asking!

 

[holston]

...So you and your like-minded friends here think 9/11was an "inside job" perpetrated by my gov’t, i.e.: my councilman, senator, governer, vice president, president, all member of congress, joints chief of staff, the secretary of state, all the military personnel, fbi, cia,
airplane pilots and crew members...
people working at the airports….what about the boy scouts were they looked into at the time…

No, no. Facilitating the attack and providing logistical support, opening channels, and setting charges didn't require near that many people. A relatively small cabal could accomplish all these things provided they were in the right positions and had the wherewithal to do it.

When you count these requirements, the field of suspects becomes greatly narrowed.
In fact, those limitations focus attention in one direction.

Now the folks who occupied positions which would have enabled them to guide the attacks, would have to be in strategic places, HIGH places. Because they occupied these positions in the first place this would also make it possible for them to cover up their deeds and quash any serious challenges from doubters poking around for solid proof.

The fact that the news media has practically blacked out all serious serious evidence provides a clue as to who these people are and the extent of their power.
The mere fact that the media would pass up an opportunity to capitalize on all the sensation that such evidence would provide is a type of evidence in itself.

There are far more people who have serious doubts than the media would have you to believe. Many of the credible witnesses have been smeared in the same manner that you are seeking to smear those here who endorse anything but the Kosher story.


There is only so much circumstantial evidence that can accumulate before any reasonable doubt can be removed.

Anyone who studies the matter long enough will eventually have to admit that the case for controlled demolition goes far beyond the amount of circumstantial evidence that would be required to convict a person of murder, even without a body.
People have went to the gas chamber on far less.

...just this teeny-eenie-weenie lil’ part can I ask you about ?
how does it come together in your mind….? and no cutting and pasting.... your own feelings.


"WTC hijackings: as best as you can...to youthere were NO hijackers or there were, but WERE in cahoots with the Gov't/military/airport people ?......our gov't/military/airport people CONSPIRED with these 19 people to hijack the planes and ram them into the WTC...?"

Once it becomes apparent that there is sufficient cause to believe that controlled demolitions were used, that is enough reason to pursue the case until the perpetrators are caught and convicted. If not, then what excuse do the "debunkers" have for endorsing the endless wars in the middle east and all the blood and money that have been sunk into it?


When it is clear that a crime has been committed, one does not quit the case prematurely because all of the details have not been fleshed out.

I could give you a general idea of how this could have all been done, but as you said "There are many parts to this atrocity."

We can see how long it takes to conduct a court trial. We know how long debates can continue in Congress over various matters.

If it was possible to condense everything into a nutshell, there would be no need to go to school for years and years.

How long it would take to cover a certain amount of ground would depend on how much detail you would need to be satisfied.

In the case of 9/11, the guilty parties and those associated with them, would be fighting a no holds barred game to prevent certain facts from coming to light.
These people, having the resources to conduct such an operation in the first place would also have the means at their disposal to shut down investigation.

Therefore each and every detail of this investigation would be hotly contested. Progress would be stalled by all means available. And in the end, they would simply deny, deny, deny, even if the PROOF was thrust into their faces.

We see this behavior among criminals time and time again. Anyone facing the consequences of having to answer for a crime of this magnitude would have nothing to lose by denying ALL to the bitter end. YOU should expect THAT from the outset.


Given the many events and issues which have cropped up in the past couple of decades in which Congress and public officials simply ignored the will of the people, why should it shock you that the same thing would be done in this case where so much was at stake and so many people had already committed so much and staked their reputations on backing the past three or four administrations?

The entire media is a part of that Washington establishment now, so you can't expect a population who are more interested in "Grinding With the Stars" to bother themselves to study the matter long enough to be persuaded can you?

And of those who would, what do you think the majority would say?

I can tell you..... "There's not a damn thing you can do about it." And "I'm not going to let those people ruin my peace of mind."


YOU think about it. Right now, the government is under the control of a relatively small number of Wealthy Globalists who have nothing more to pursue in life but more power. Some may have an insatiable appetite for money because of that, even though they have more money than they need. Some are megalomaniacs.
Why should we believe there are no murderers or despots among them?

What guarantee do we have of their benevolence or even good intentions towards the peoples whose lives their decisions affect?

We used to have a Republic which offered certain guarantees even if some of the leaders were corrupted. Now we see that they have no respect for those laws themselves, and will simply do according to what the money masters require of them to remain in power. And the money masters do as they see fit.

All politicians know the right rhetoric to use. How many of them do you suppose believe in it or really mean what they say?


If you have heard the stories about how the USSR was run or how things are done in China, what makes you think that those things can not be done in the US?

If the people have become degenerate and corrupt themselves, how can they assume that their leaders are going to be any more principled?



I am convinced that controlled demolitions were used.
I am convinced that some people in high places in the US government and elsewhere knew of the impending attacks and facilitated them, if they didn't set them up in the first place.

Just as Lee Harvey Oswald said he was a patsy, I believe there were patsies in this case.
Exactly how they were handled and how everything transpired is debatable in the same way that the question of who was responsible for the Kennedy assassination was.

The 9/11 Commission Report carries about as much weight as the Warren commission report did.


I console myself in the belief that after this life there will be a judgement.

Luke 12

2 For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. 3 Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

Matthew 10

26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. 27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. 28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Most men, if they are honest, must admit that they have at some time or another been acquainted with the fear of men.
Think of the fear those folks who had to jump must have felt!

So if we fear men and things on occasions when we should not, then how much more should we fear God who can read our minds better than we can ourselves and Whom no one can stop?

 

[SFC Ollie]

More opinions..............We all have them..........

But some of us have actual proof.......

 

[daws101]

...so you and your like-minded friends here think 9/11was an "inside job" perpetrated by my gov’t, i.e.: My councilman, senator, governer, vice president, president, all member of congress, joints chief of staff, the secretary of state, all the military personnel, fbi, cia,
airplane pilots and crew members...
People working at the airports….what about the boy scouts were they looked into at the time…

no, no. Facilitating the attack and providing logistical support, opening channels, and setting charges didn't require near that many people. A relatively small cabal could accomplish all these things provided they were in the right positions and had the wherewithal to do it.

When you count these requirements, the field of suspects becomes greatly narrowed.
In fact, those limitations focus attention in one direction.

Now the folks who occupied positions which would have enabled them to guide the attacks, would have to be in strategic places, high places. Because they occupied these positions in the first place this would also make it possible for them to cover up their deeds and quash any serious challenges from doubters poking around for solid proof.

The fact that the news media has practically blacked out all serious serious evidence provides a clue as to who these people are and the extent of their power.
The mere fact that the media would pass up an opportunity to capitalize on all the sensation that such evidence would provide is a type of evidence in itself.

There are far more people who have serious doubts than the media would have you to believe. Many of the credible witnesses have been smeared in the same manner that you are seeking to smear those here who endorse anything but the kosher story.


There is only so much circumstantial evidence that can accumulate before any reasonable doubt can be removed.

Anyone who studies the matter long enough will eventually have to admit that the case for controlled demolition goes far beyond the amount of circumstantial evidence that would be required to convict a person of murder, even without a body.
People have went to the gas chamber on far less.

...just this teeny-eenie-weenie lil’ part can i ask you about ?
How does it come together in your mind….? And no cutting and pasting.... Your own feelings.


"wtc hijackings: As best as you can...to youthere were no hijackers or there were, but were in cahoots with the gov't/military/airport people ?......our gov't/military/airport people conspired with these 19 people to hijack the planes and ram them into the wtc...?"

once it becomes apparent that there is sufficient cause to believe that controlled demolitions were used, that is enough reason to pursue the case until the perpetrators are caught and convicted. If not, then what excuse do the "debunkers" have for endorsing the endless wars in the middle east and all the blood and money that have been sunk into it?


When it is clear that a crime has been committed, one does not quit the case prematurely because all of the details have not been fleshed out.

I could give you a general idea of how this could have all been done, but as you said "there are many parts to this atrocity."

we can see how long it takes to conduct a court trial. We know how long debates can continue in congress over various matters.

If it was possible to condense everything into a nutshell, there would be no need to go to school for years and years.

How long it would take to cover a certain amount of ground would depend on how much detail you would need to be satisfied.

In the case of 9/11, the guilty parties and those associated with them, would be fighting a no holds barred game to prevent certain facts from coming to light.
These people, having the resources to conduct such an operation in the first place would also have the means at their disposal to shut down investigation.

Therefore each and every detail of this investigation would be hotly contested. Progress would be stalled by all means available. And in the end, they would simply deny, deny, deny, even if the proof was thrust into their faces.

we see this behavior among criminals time and time again. Anyone facing the consequences of having to answer for a crime of this magnitude would have nothing to lose by denying all to the bitter end. You should expect that from the outset.


Given the many events and issues which have cropped up in the past couple of decades in which congress and public officials simply ignored the will of the people, why should it shock you that the same thing would be done in this case where so much was at stake and so many people had already committed so much and staked their reputations on backing the past three or four administrations?

The entire media is a part of that washington establishment now, so you can't expect a population who are more interested in "grinding with the stars" to bother themselves to study the matter long enough to be persuaded can you?

And of those who would, what do you think the majority would say?

I can tell you..... "there's not a damn thing you can do about it." and "i'm not going to let those people ruin my peace of mind."


you think about it. Right now, the government is under the control of a relatively small number of wealthy globalists who have nothing more to pursue in life but more power. some may have an insatiable appetite for money because of that, even though they have more money than they need. Some are megalomaniacs.
Why should we believe there are no murderers or despots among them?

What guarantee do we have of their benevolence or even good intentions towards the peoples whose lives their decisions affect?

We used to have a republic which offered certain guarantees even if some of the leaders were corrupted. Now we see that they have no respect for those laws themselves, and will simply do according to what the money masters require of them to remain in power. And the money masters do as they see fit.

All politicians know the right rhetoric to use. How many of them do you suppose believe in it or really mean what they say?


If you have heard the stories about how the ussr was run or how things are done in china, what makes you think that those things can not be done in the us?

If the people have become degenerate and corrupt themselves, how can they assume that their leaders are going to be any more principled?



I am convinced that controlled demolitions were used.
I am convinced that some people in high places in the us government and elsewhere knew of the impending attacks and facilitated them, if they didn't set them up in the first place.

Just as lee harvey oswald said he was a patsy, i believe there were patsies in this case.
Exactly how they were handled and how everything transpired is debatable in the same way that the question of who was responsible for the kennedy assassination was.

The 9/11 commission report carries about as much weight as the warren commission report did.


I console myself in the belief that after this life there will be a judgement.

Luke 12

2 for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. 3 therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

4 and i say unto you my friends, be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 but i will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, i say unto you, fear him.

matthew 10

26 fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. 27 what i tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: And what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. 28 and fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: But rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

most men, if they are honest, must admit that they have at some time or another been acquainted with the fear of men.
Think of the fear those folks who had to jump must have felt!

So if we fear men and things on occasions when we should not, then how much more should we fear god who can read our minds better than we can ourselves and whom no one can stop?

you might wanna back off on the energy drinks...

 

[SFC Ollie]

I simply love these people who are so convinced that controlled demo was used even though there isn't a shred of evidence.....

 

[daws101]

I simply love these people who are so convinced that controlled demo was used even though there isn't a shred of evidence.....

yep!

 

[eots]

I simply love these people who are so convinced that controlled demo was used even though there isn't a shred of evidence.....

other than the collapse itself what"evidence" do you expect ?

 

[daws101]

I simply love these people who are so convinced that controlled demo was used even though there isn't a shred of evidence.....

other than the collapse itself what"evidence" do you expect ?

asked and answered...

 

[holston]

I simply love these people who are so convinced that controlled demo was used even though there isn't a shred of evidence.....

Oh there's plenty of evidence. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[SFC Ollie]

No there is not plenty of evidence. if there was we would know about it by now. But all we've been presented with is flawed theories, bad science, and mostly Opinion.........

 

[daws101]

I simply love these people who are so convinced that controlled demo was used even though there isn't a shred of evidence.....

Oh there's plenty of evidence. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

there is plenty of evidence ,that you asshats are delusional and it's acknowledged by everyone.

 

[snowdenisahero]

When all else fails then blame the jews. I see.

 

[holston]

there is plenty of evidence ,that you asshats are delusional and it's acknowledged by everyone.

There is plenty of evidence. And you A$$Hats refuse to admit it.

There is so much of it in fact, that it would take volumes to describe it all in detail.

That would require to much concentration and focus of attention to permit the ZOGBots and thimble brains to absorb or comprehend.
For example, a person must at least be able to put together and complete a logical syllogism.

The Habarats and Government Finks already understand this evidence themselves, comprehend it, and know what it means. That is why they will spare no effort in suppressing it, ridiculing those who reveal it, and use every conceivable device known to man and some by the devil to keep the realization of it from ever dawning on the masses.

Personally I don't think that the masses are as pea brained as ZOG takes them to be. They're are a great many who already have come to the realization that elements within the US and Israel were complicit in the crime.
But they also believe that there is nothing that can be done about it short of a revolution.
Notice I said "revolution", not revolt.

A revolt may be what many within the ZOG establishment may wish to promote in order that they have an excuse to use their FEMA camps, and all the ammunition and military hardware that the DHS stockpiled.
Also, I doubt if there is anything more that Prez would enjoy as to be given a chance to not only function as a King, but to play the role of a tin horn dictator except maybe a good white piece of a$$.

Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness | The White House

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

By their terms, these provisions vest full control of the military forces of the United States in the President. The power of the President is at its zenith under the Constitution when the President is directing military operations of the armed forces, because the power of Commander in Chief is assigned solely to the President. It has long been the view of this Office that the Commander-in-Chief Clause is a substantive grant of authority to the President and that the scope of the President's authority to commit the armed forces to combat is very broad.

So "they" say.

Some commentators have read the constitutional text differently. They argue that the vesting of the power to declare war gives Congress the sole authority to decide whether to make war. (6) This view misreads the constitutional text and misunderstands the nature of a declaration of war. Declaring war is not tantamount to making war - indeed, the Constitutional Convention specifically amended the working draft of the Constitution that had given Congress the power to make war. An earlier draft of the Constitution had given to Congress the power to "make" war.

So now we are not "declaring" war, we are just "making" it; and even on the American population if the KING damn well says so.

First, it is clear that the Constitution secures all federal executive power in the President to ensure a unity in purpose and energy in action. "Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number."

How this differs from the power "given" to a Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or a Saddam Hussein escapes me.

In foreign affairs, however, the Constitution does not establish a mandatory, detailed, Congress-driven procedure for taking action. Rather, the Constitution vests the two branches with different powers - the President as Commander in Chief, Congress with control over funding and declaring war - without requiring that they follow a specific process in making war.

That's some fine double talk don't you agree?

But the purpose of the enumeration of executive powers in Article II was not to define and cabin the grant in the Vesting Clause. Rather, the Framers unbundled some plenary powers that had traditionally been regarded as "executive," assigning elements of those powers to Congress in Article I, while expressly reserving other elements as enumerated executive powers in Article II. So, for example, the King's traditional power to declare war was given to Congress under Article I, while the Commander-in-Chief authority was expressly reserved to the President in Article II.

In other words, the Jewish lawyers or Talmudic authorities have decided that the Constitution really didn't mean to reserve the authority to declare war to Congress.
Taking a vote on it would take too long I presume. Sort of like all the preliminary garbage that dragged on preceding the Iraq invasion and the "Arab" Spring.

Why do you think 9/11 was needed in the first place? or as Netanyahu said, "Good for Israel, very good."
As if the "terrorists" would be smart enough to pull a fast one on the Trillion dollar US Defense system but too STUPID to predict the fallout.

Fourth, depriving the President of the power to decide when to use military force would disrupt the basic constitutional framework of foreign relations

Oh hell yes. You can say that again.

Right. Yomamma needs the authority to kick ass whenever and where HE thinks it's necessary, and no time for partisan bickering. Whatever Yomamma say, dats whut I saz too.

I mean, what if aliens landed on the White House lawn? OMG.
(No not the Mexican kind. They get amnesty. Little green men go to Rockwell.)

Conclusion

In light of the text, plan, and history of the Constitution, its interpretation by both past Administrations and the courts, the longstanding practice of the executive branch, and the express affirmation of the President's constitutional authorities by Congress, we think it beyond question that the President has the plenary constitutional power to take such military actions as he deems necessary and appropriate to respond to the terrorist attacks upon the United States on September 11, 2001.
Force can be used both to retaliate for those attacks, and to prevent and deter future assaults on the Nation. Military actions need not be limited to those individuals, groups, or states that participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon: the Constitution vests the President with the power to strike terrorist groups or organizations that cannot be demonstrably linked to the September 11 incidents, but that, nonetheless, pose a similar threat to the security of the United States and the lives of its people, whether at home or overseas. (32) In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution, Congress has recognized the President's authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents. Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.
JOHN C. YOO
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel

Spoken like a loyal Sanhedrin Mr YOO.
Yomamma gets da final word, at home, OR overseas. You might say anywhere, anytime, and nobody elses rules or laws can overrule MY authority to declare them a threat and to kill them dead.


YOO sounds oriental or it at least rhymes with JOO. That may explain his lack of comprehension of the English language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress

Section 8: Powers of Congress

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Nope, wait, THAT power belongs to the Federal Reserve. It says so right there in the Constitution. Can't you read dumbbell?

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Oh wait. My mistake. The Constitution said "Declare" war, not make it.

That makes all the difference in the world doesn't it?

It's sort of like the House Resolution which "Declared" the Noachide laws the basis of all our other laws which Bush senior signed.

In other words when you "declare" something, it doesn't really mean anything.

It's only when you "make" that you really get down to business.

Sort of like "MAKE luuuuv. Not war."

Remember that one all you Weathermen?

Who in their right mind say to a girl, " I DECLARE, let's declare luuuuv?"

So when are they going to MAKE the Noachide laws binding on Goyim?
When they nail the last nail into the coffin of the Constitutional Republic and destroy the Sovereignty of the USA?
Or are they waiting 'til they can set up headquarters in Jerusalem?

 

[daws101]

there is plenty of evidence ,that you asshats are delusional and it's acknowledged by everyone.

There is plenty of evidence. And you A$$Hats refuse to admit it.

edited for anti semitic content and mental illness.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3a1bw5XlE]Israeli Minister "We always use the anti-Semitism trick or bring up the Holocaust" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

Israeli Minister "We always use the anti-Semitism trick or bring up the Holocaust" - YouTube

since both are fact why not....

 

[eots]

Israeli Minister "We always use the anti-Semitism trick or bring up the Holocaust" - YouTube

since both are fact why not....

because it has no bearing on Israeli espionage and involvement in NSA wire tapping thats why not..

 

[daws101]

Israeli Minister "We always use the anti-Semitism trick or bring up the Holocaust" - YouTube

since both are fact why not....

because it has no bearing on Israeli espionage and involvement in NSA wire tapping thats why not..

have any proof or are you just talking out your ass as usual ..