This is a transcript of a September 2004 interview with Stanley Hilton.

] Bob Dole's former chief of staff, political
] scientist, a lawyer, he went to school with Rumsfeld and others,
] he wrote his thesis about how to turn America into a dictatorship
] using a fake Pearl Harbor attack. He's suing the U.S. government
] for carrying out 9/11. He has hundreds of the victims' families
] signing onto it - it's a $7 billion lawsuit.
 . . .
] SH: Yeah, we are suing Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld,
] Mueller, etc. for complicity in personally not only allowing 9/11
] to happen but in ordering it. The hijackers we retained and we
] had a witness who is married to one of them. The hijackers were
] U.S. undercover agents. They were double agents, paid by the FBI
] and the CIA to spy on Arab groups in this country. They were
] controlled. Their landlord was an FBI informant in San Diego and
] other places. And this was a direct, covert operation ordered,
] personally ordered by George W. Bush. Personally ordered. We have
] incriminating evidence, documents as well as witnesses, to this
] effect. It's not just incompetence - in spite of the fact that he
] is incompetent. The fact is he personally ordered this, knew
] about it. He, at one point, there were rehearsals of this. The
] reason why he appeared to be uninterested and nonchalant on
] September 11th - when those videos showed that Andrew Card
] whispered in his ear the [garbled] words about this he listened
] to kids reading the pet goat story, is that he thought this was
] another rehearsal. These people had dress-rehearsed this many
] times. He had seen simulated videos of this.

I'm interested in this story, not because I give any credibility whatsoever to the "Bush ordered 9/11 to happen" theory, but because I'm curious why an attorney with Hilton's background would be saying this kind of stuff. I haven't found any substantial debunking sites on the web, so I figured that either (a) he's completely lost it; or (b) he's doing some lawyerly thing where he's trying to present the views of his clients, even though his clients are clearly out of touch with reality.

Several conspiracy sites around the web have pounced on Hilton's lawsuit, but I haven't seen any "real" discussion about it from any reputable sites (if anybody knows of one, I'd be interested in seeing it). In any case, I'm looking forward to learning more about what Hilton's real goals are, or if the entire lawsuit is simply a hoax using Hilton's name.

A bit more info here:
http://www.oilempire.us/hilton.html

Interview with Stanley Hilton