BUSH & CHENEY INDICTED full article

well i hope it's true!

 

Turns out the story is complete BS. I have lost a lot of respect for Tom Flocco because of this.

See The Tom Flocco Debacle.

 

Another crude lesson in healthy reserve.

 

if that's true then that's very bloody disappointing. tom flocco's site apparently no longer exists on that server. so no response from him yet. we'll see.

 

yea no 1 would ever do that right?

 

Tim Flocco didn't just MAKE this up cadcruzer, I'm sure it was just false and/or bad information he had received from a source and published it to early without backing it up, you jump all over him for this because he is an internet reporter, but "supposubly", Dan Rather did the same thing...It happens to Journalists Cadcruzer, so you can stop being a dick now.

 

Very kind of you to go in and make excuses for him in advance of any kind of admission on his part.

This speaks volumes about both Flocco and the echo chamber websites which simply repeated what he said, yet people here somehow considered this "confirming" his story.

Nobody's being a dick, we're just laughing at you conspiracy theorist getting played for fools yet again.

 

You Conspiracy Theorists? Did I ever post this article anywhere, or agree that the article was in fact true, stop generalizing everybody pointbreak, many of the people in here including the poster were very skepical about this article

 

......

 

it's true we haven't had any word from tom flocco yet, yet ur rushing in to condemn him pb. i can almost feel ur glee and hunger from over here, probably alot like mine when i first read this article. no confirmation of this story came from me or anyone here: interested disbelief would be more like it, as this thread shows. so should i have posted it? cadcuzer and u say not. but then u and cadcruzer would, wouldn't u? if it is bullshit and flocco 'fesses up i guess that will be one fact about 9/11 that someone can prove to ur satisfaction. meanwhile, the number of ppl who whole heartedly support the 9/11 truth movement grows. soon, not yet, but soon, this thing will reach a critical mass. then we'll see who's laughing.

ps ur a conspiracy theorist 2 pb because of ur vigorous defence of the offficial conspiracy theory, might i ask then: who's playing u 4 a fool?

 

yeah i post alot of stuff from nonsense sights haha not only did you post it once but 2wice hook line an sinker

 

"Nonsense sights"? What are they?

 

u may not post anything but u certainly repeat everything they say, now don't u? hook, line and sinker? i don't think so, luv. where do i demonstrate that? and please, i'd like hard physical evidence if u don't mind: not supposition or interpretation.

 

You didn't say it was true, but you did rush in to make excuses for him ("Tim Flocco didn't just MAKE this up cadcruzer, I'm sure it was just false and/or bad information he had received from a source and published it to early without backing it up"). What was that based on? You're here to make excuses for him until he can come up with his own?

Actually the mystery to me is why anyone admits this story is wrong. There was no evidence it was true, and there is no evidence it was not true. There is nothing at all here other than Flocco's unsubstantiated, undocumented claims. So why of all the moronic conspiracy theories has this one somehow been rejected? Because Rat posted a story which doesn't say anything more than I or cadcruzer said? [Interestingly Rat thinks the story was "complete BS" and has lost "a lot" of respect for Flocco - apparently then not all respect is lost when somone posts complete BS!] What was so authoritative about Rat's link? Flocco can easily come out tomorrow and say the indictment has been "buried" or "covered up" or that the story was planted on him by the Illuminati.

As for confirmation, you posted that "sherman skolnick confirms tom flocco story" (one part of which says "Uh, Tom, if there was an honest Pulitzer Prize committee, you would be awarded the prize. But the Pulitzer Prize committee, someday you'll have to write about them, because they're not legitimate. [laughs]"), although confirm seems to mean repeat. And then said there was more at "cloak and dagger", then someone else pointed out it was on portland indymedia (and told us to "shut the fuck up" until more information comes out (from where?), etc. Well, how do any of these sites confirm what was nothing more than hearsay? Repetition of conspiracy theories and hearsay does not add to their credibility.

As for posting stories, I highly encourage you to post stories although a reality check beforehand would be appreciated. I have nothing against it, for example I mostly stay out of the Protest forum since I'll argue viewpoints but I don't want to discourage anyone from protesting. I encourage protest. As it happens conspiracy theorists don't seem to have any interest in protesting (or doing much of anything). But anyway, no, I don't discourage you from posting this stuff.

I don't believe in shape changing lizard jews or think the holocaust was a zionist plot. Call me crazy.

 

i posted sherman skolnick under the caveat that i had no way to vouch 4 it. i was not confirming it. no way. as soon as rat became aware of the disclaimer he posted that here 2. there are prob'ly still more twists and turns 2 come. we'll keep u posted. but ur right repetition of conspiracy theories don't add up to credibility: we're seeing this at the moment with the official conspiracy theory which has been repeated ad naseum, yet half of new york city doesn't believe it.

nor do i, so that's two of us.

 

lets try www.timflocco.com

 

Actually "half of NYC doesn't believe it" is bullshit. Its simply twisting a question to serve your ends. Ask New Yorkers if the government had some evidence that some sort of plot might have been in the works, and that if they had been better organised and given it a higher priority it might have been stopped, yes. Ask New Yorkers if the US government definitely knew exactly what was going to happen and decided to let it happen or were part of the plot, then the percentage responding yes would roughly approximate the percentage of the population that are complete morons, which would be smaller than 50%.

 

cadcruzer, how does a link, to wit: www.timflocco.com, constitute hard evidence. u do realise it's a dead link...?

 

i dont follow ur logic here, so ur saying that a poll conducted by a reputable polling company using open methodology with published results is bullshit, yet the hypothetical polls u dream up here are more truthful? give me a break kid.