FAHRENHEIT 911 FULL MOVIE IN HD ETC

THIS IS THE ENTIRE FAHRENHEIT 911 MOVIE by Michael Moore in HD. This movie is a prime example of how a literal mountain range of valid exculpatory evidence can be ignored to obstruct justice despite the massive human rights violations and/or displacement of human life and/or loss of human life that incurred thereof. This movie should have been privately screened by the entire U.S. Congress; but it unfortunately never was. > go to: FAHRENHEIT 911 @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXDSFWa kTI&list=PL6oforB7ir5KVvLB8_Lg9tjB925SgByPf +  UNPRECEDENTED @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ7j7Gv-s5g

> See also: 9-11 Conspiracy Solved Names, Connections, & Details Exposed! @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hhBZJEqoe0A) + Federal judge tosses Iraqi woman’s suit against George W. Bush? But! We do know that George Bush senior invaded Kuwait based upon his own personal financial gain; and that several American oil companies already had the entire country of Iraq mapped out for their own personal corporate financial gain etc BEFORE THE WAR IN IRAQ EVER STARTED!?! > see also: HIGHWAY OF DEATH @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death

911 COVERUP FALLING APART > When top Bush administration officials immediately and in unison denied knowing that jetliners could be used to attack American landmarks right after 9/11, a number of alert reporters immediately pointed out that this very subject had been under government study for almost a decade. And when U.S. officials immediately released a list of the alleged hijackers, the lie was immediately visible to those with eyes to see: how could they deny knowing this possibility of a massive jetliner attack existed, yet be able to name the alleged hijackers almost instantly because these individuals had been under surveillance for months?

If they could name the alleged hijackers, then they couldn't deny knowing the possibility of using planes as weapons existed, could they?

As astonishing events unfolded after the tragedy — the hasty passage of the Patriot Act (approved by Congress despite virtually no one in Congress reading it before voting for it), which nullified large portions of the U.S. Constitution; constant "terror alerts" about which no evidence was ever produced; the war against Afghanistan which was claimed to be a response to 9/11 yet was planned long before 9/11; and the war against Iraq, which was waged because that nation supposedly threatened America with weapons of mass destruction (which have never and will never be found, unless planted) and had ties to that mystery terror group called Al-Qaeda (since proven to be lies) — many more millions of Americans began to understand that the new peril they were in was not from some shadowy worldwide terror group but from unscrupulous demagogues in Washington who would invent any story — and kill any number of people — in order to improve the fortunes of the very military/industrial power brokers who illegally brought them to power in the first place. > go to: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/911_coverup_falling_apart.htm

THE DEAFNESS BEFORE THE STORM > On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity. > go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0 

 > Note: Ralph Nader has been asking for locking cockpit doors on airliners since the 1972 Olympics.

LOVE YOUR ENEMIES? > John woke up sometime after midnight on September 11th, 2001 to Donald Rumsfeld on ABC's Nightline talking about "cutting the tail off the dog" in regards to cutting back the U.S. Military and going more space-based with new military technology. Was Mister Rumsfelds' "cutting the tail off the dog" comment a reference to the World Trade Center buildings which were about to be razed? Was this some kind of "GO" signal? Or was it simply a reference to cutting back the military; which clearly DID NOT happen after the events of September 11th? (Mister Rumsfeld was in a newly fortified part of the Pentagon when a missile impacted that part of the building. Was this payback for his threat to cut back the military? -- It's like shutting down an entire slaughterhouse and laying off the employees -- it's just not gonna go over too good [and especially with employees who have access to weapons of mass destruction with little or no oversight]) Instead the U.S. Military was bolstered like never before; receiving more money than ever and therefore making United Defense stocks soar. (a stock both the Bin Laden and Bush families owned). > GO TO: VIDEO OF MISSILE HITTING PENTAGON ON 9/11 @ http://www.theeventchronicle.com/911/newly-released-video-missile-hitting-pentagon-911/#prettyPhoto

QUESTION: 1) Why did a U.S. Military weapons specialist approach John at the old Acapulco Restaurant in Santa Clara shortly after the 911 attacks and claim the FBI had been interrogating him regarding the attacks for possible involvement in them?

 ANSWERS: A) "The United States government has a long history of denying responsibility for destructive and provocative actions. If the United States government wants to help, they can admit their culpability and compensate victims for the damages this attack caused..." -- John 1:1 (go to: http://misinformation.net/) > B) "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 > http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm

> THE BOTTOM LINE: Judges are often essentially nothing more than government CEOs and/or "foxes who watch the hen house"; tossing lawsuits to save the government money and their reputation; regardless of (and oftentimes especially due to) their validity. > go to: http://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/Federal-judge-tosses-Iraqi-woman-s-suit-against-5979253.php

NOTE: John was 10 years old back in 1972 when the Nixon scandal hit the fan; and while many likely thought it was the wrong idea to expose the corruption that existed at the federal level (go to: http://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers/) and yet others feared the  civil unrest that would inevitably ensue -- once the dust finally settled; the unprecedented events of 1972 brought about massive change within government; and roughly 3 decades of relative prosperity (that is; until evil geniuses within the Republican party were able to finally forcefully turn the ship around once again in September of 2001 >see also:1972; 1992; 2008; X).