SEC: Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 Put Options

George Washington's picture



On September 19, 2001, CBS reported:

tell CBS News that the afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were
sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market.

extraordinary number of trades were betting that American Airlines
stock price would fall.

The trades are called "puts" and they
involved at least 450,000 shares of American. But what raised the red
flag is more than 80 percent of the orders were "puts", far
outnumbering "call" options, those betting the stock would rise.

say they have never seen that kind of imbalance before, reports CBS
News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. Normally the numbers are fairly

After the terrorist attacks, American Airline stock price
did fall obviously by 39 percent, and according to sources, that
translated into well over $5 million total profit for the person or
persons who bet the stock would fall.


At least one
Wall Street firm reported their suspicions about this activity to the
SEC shortly after the attack.

The same thing happened with
United Airlines on the Chicago Board Options Exchange four days before
the attack. An extremely unbalanced number of trades betting United's
stock price would fall — also transformed into huge profits when it did
after the hijackings.

"We can directly work backwards from a
trade on the floor of the Chicago Board Options Exchange. The trader is
linked to a brokerage firm. The brokerage firm received the order to
buy that 'put' option from either someone within a brokerage firm
speculating, or from one of the customers," said Randall Dodd of the
Economic Strategy Institute.

U.S. investigators want to know
whether Osama bin Laden was the ultimate "inside trader" — profiting
from a tragedy he's suspected of masterminding to finance his
operation. Authorities are also investigating possibly suspicious
trading in Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Japan.

September 29, 2001, the San Francisco Chronicle pointed

"Usually, if someone has a
windfall like that, you take the money and run," said the source, who
spoke on condition of anonymity. "Whoever did this thought the exchange
would not be closed for four days.


"This smells real bad."




was an unusually large jump in purchases of put options on the stocks
of UAL Corp. and AMR Corp. in the three business days before the attack
on major options exchanges in the United States. On one day, UAL put
option purchases were 25 times greater than the year-to-date average.
In the month before the attacks, short sales jumped by 40 percent for
UAL and 20 percent for American.


for British securities regulators and the AXA Group also confirmed
yesterday that investigations are continuing.

The source familiar
with the United trades identified Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, the
American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the
investment bank used to purchase at least some of the options.


weekend, German central bank president Ernst Welteke said a study
pointed to "terrorism insider trading" in those stocks.

Chronicle illustrated the story with the following chart:

On October 19, 2001, the Chronicle wrote:

Oct. 2, Canadian securities officials confirmed that the SEC privately
had asked North American investment firms to review their records for
evidence of trading activity in the shares of 38 companies, suggesting
that some buyers and sellers might have had advance knowledge of the



FMR Corp.
spokeswoman Anne Crowley, said her firm -- which owns the giant
Fidelity family of mutual funds in Boston -- has already provided
"account and transaction" information to investigators, and had no
objection to the new procedures announced yesterday. Crowley declined
to describe the nature of the information previously shared with the

So the effort to track down the source
of the puts was certainly quite substantial.

What were the
results and details of the investigation?

Apparently, we'll never

David Callahan - executive editor of SmartCEO - submitted a Freedom of
Information Act request to the SEC regarding the pre-9/11 put options.

SEC responded:

letter is in response to your request seeking access to and copies of
the documentary evidence referred to in footnote 130 of Chapter 5 of the
September 11 (9/11) Commission Report.


We have been
advised that the potentially responsive records have been destroyed.

the SEC had responded by producing documents showing that the pre-9/11
put options had an innocent explanation (such as a hedge made by a
smaller airline), that would be understandable.

If the SEC had
responded by saying that the documents were classified as somehow
protecting proprietary financial information, I wouldn't like it, but I
would at least understand the argument.

But destroyed? Why? (See Afterword for
additional details.)

Not the First Time

This is not
the first destruction of documentary evidence related to 9/11.

in March:

As I
pointed out in 2007:

The 9/11 Commission Report was largely
based on a third-hand account
of what tortured detainees said, with two
of the three
parties in the communication being government

The official 9/11 Commission Report states:

5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda
members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the
9/11 plot. Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses-sworn
enemies of the United States-is challenging. Our access to them has been
limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications
received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place.
We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no
control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest
would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so
that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify
ambiguities in the reporting.

In other words, the 9/11
Commissioners were not allowed to speak with the detainees, or even
their interrogators. Instead, they got their information third-hand.


Commission didn't really trust the interrogation testimony. For
example, one of the primary architects of the 9/11 Commission Report,
Ernest May, said in May

We never had full confidence in the interrogation
reports as historical sources.

As I noted
last May:

Newsweek is running an essay by [New York Times
investigative reporter] Philip Shenon saying [that the 9/11 Commission
Report was unreliable because most of the information was based on the
statements of tortured detainees]:

The commission
appears to have ignored obvious clues throughout 2003 and 2004 that its
account of the 9/11 plot and Al Qaeda's history relied heavily on
information obtained from detainees who had been subjected to torture,
or something not far from it.


The panel raised no
public protest over the CIA's interrogation methods, even though news
reports at the time suggested how brutal those methods were. In fact,
the commission demanded that the CIA carry out new rounds of
interrogations in 2004 to get answers to its questions.


That has troubling implications for the
credibility of the commission's final report. In intelligence circles, testimony obtained through torture is
typically discredited;
research shows that people will say
anything under threat of intense physical pain


yet it is a distinct possibility that Al Qaeda suspects who were the
exclusive source of information for long passages of the commission's
report may have been subjected to "enhanced" interrogation techniques,
or at least threatened with them, because of the 9/11


Information from CIA interrogations of two
of the three—KSM and Abu Zubaydah—is cited throughout two key chapters
of the panel's report focusing on the planning and execution of the
attacks and on the history of Al Qaeda


in the panel's report indicate when information was obtained from
detainees interrogated by the CIA. An analysis by NBC News found that
more than a quarter of the report's footnotes—441 of some
1,700—referred to detainees who were subjected to the CIA's "enhanced"
interrogation program, including the trio who were waterboarded.


Commission members note that they repeatedly pressed the
Bush White House and CIA for direct access to the detainees, but the
administration refused. So the commission forwarded questions to the
CIA, whose interrogators posed them on the panel's behalf.


The commission's report gave no hint that harsh interrogation
methods were used in gathering information, stating that the panel had
"no control" over how the CIA did its job; the authors also said they
had attempted to corroborate the information "with documents and
statements of others."


But how could the commission
corroborate information known only to a handful of people in a shadowy
terrorist network, most of whom were either dead or still at large?


Former senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat
on the commission, told me last year he had long feared that the
investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda
detainees who were physically coerced into talking


Kerrey said it might take "a permanent 9/11 commission" to end
the remaining mysteries of September 11.

Zubaida was well-known to the FBI as being literally crazy. The Washington
quotes "FBI officials, including agents who questioned
[alleged Al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaida] after his capture or reviewed
documents seized from his home" as concluding that he was:

a loudmouthed and mentally troubled hotelier whose credibility dropped
as the CIA subjected him to a simulated drowning technique known as
waterboarding and to other "enhanced interrogation" measures.


Retired FBI agent Daniel Coleman, who led
an examination of documents after Abu Zubaida's capture in early 2002
and worked on the case, said the CIA's harsh tactics cast doubt on the
credibility of Abu Zubaida's information.


"I don't have
confidence in anything he says, because once you go down that road,
everything you say is tainted," Coleman said, referring to the harsh
measures. "He was talking before they did that to him, but they didn't
believe him. The problem is they didn't realize he didn't know all that much."




said, 'You've got to be kidding me,' " said Coleman, recalling accounts
from FBI employees who were there. " 'This guy's a Muslim. That's not
going to win his confidence. Are
you trying to get information out of him or just belittle him
Coleman helped lead the bureau's efforts against Osama bin Laden for a
decade, ending in 2004.


Coleman goes on to

Abu Zubaida ... was a "safehouse keeper" with
mental problems who claimed to know more about al-Qaeda and its inner
workings than he really did.


Looking at other
evidence, including a serious head injury that Abu Zubaida had suffered
years earlier, Coleman and others at the FBI believed that he had severe mental problems that called
his credibility into question. "They
all knew he was crazy
, and they knew he was always on the damn
phone," Coleman said, referring to al-Qaeda operatives. "You think
they're going to tell him anything?"

ACLU, FireDogLake's
Marcy Wheeler
and RawStory
broke the story yesterday that (quoting RawStory):


Senior Bush administration officials
sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
, according to a
document recently obtained by the ACLU.


The notification came in a letter dated January
6, 2004
, addressed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet. The ACLU
described it as a fax sent by David Addington, then-counsel to former
vice president Dick Cheney.


In the message, the officials denied
the bipartisan commission's request to question terrorist detainees,
informing its two senior-most members that doing so would "cross" a
"line" and obstruct the administration's ability to protect the nation.


response to the Commission's expansive requests for access to secrets,
the executive branch has provided such access in full cooperation,"
the letter read. "There is, however, a line that the Commission should
not cross -- the line separating the Commission's proper inquiry into
the September 11, 2001 attacks from interference with the Government's
ability to safeguard the national security, including protection of
Americans from future terrorist attacks."




Commission staff's proposed participation in questioning of detainees
would cross that line," the letter continued. "As the officers of the
United States responsible for the law enforcement, defense and
intelligence functions of the Government, we urge your Commission not
to further pursue the proposed request to participate in the
questioning of detainees."

Destruction of


The interrogators made videotapes of the
interrogations. The 9/11 Commission asked for all tapes, but the CIA
lied and said there weren't any.


The CIA then destroyed the


Specifically, the New
York Times
confirms that the government swore that it had turned over all of
the relevant material regarding the statements of the people being

“The commission did formally request
material of this kind from all relevant agencies, and the commission
was assured that we had received all the material responsive to our
request,” said Philip D. Zelikow, who served as executive director of
the Sept. 11 commission ....


“No tapes were acknowledged or
turned over, nor was the commission provided with any transcript
prepared from recordings,” he said.

But is the
destruction of the tapes -- and hiding from the 9/11 Commission the fact
that the tapes existed -- a big deal? Yes, actually. As the Times
goes on to state:

Daniel Marcus, a law professor at
American University who served as general
counsel for the Sept. 11 commission
and was involved in the
discussions about interviews with Al Qaeda leaders, said he had heard
nothing about any tapes being destroyed.


If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very
big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to
withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding

Indeed, 9/11 Commission
co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:

who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them —
obstructed our investigation.

The CIA also is refusing to
release any transcripts from the interrogation sessions. As I wrote
a year ago:

What does the fact that the CIA
destroyed numerous videotapes of Guantanamo interrogations, but has 3,000
pages of transcripts
from those tapes really mean?


it means that CIA's claim that it destroyed the video tapes to protect
the interrogators' identity is false. Why? Well, the transcripts
contain the identity of the interrogator. And the CIA is refusing to
produce the transcripts.


Obviously, the CIA could have "blurred"
the face of the interrogator and shifted his voice (like you've seen on
investigative tv shows like 60 Minutes) to protect the interrogator's
identity. And since the CIA is not releasing the transcripts, it
similarly could have refused to release the videos.


The fact that
the CIA instead destroyed the
videos shows that it has something to hide.

to Create a False Linkage?

I have repeatedly pointed out that
the top interrogation experts say that torture
doesn't work

As I wrote
last May:


The fact that people were
tortured in order to justify the Iraq war by making a false linkage
between Iraq and 9/11
is gaining attention.


Many people are
starting to understand that top Bush administration officials not only
knowingly lied about a non-existent connection between Al Qaida and
Iraq, but they pushed and insisted that interrogators use special torture methods aimed at
extracting false confessions to attempt to create such a false linkage.


the Senate Armed Services Committee found that the
U.S. used torture techniques specifically aimed at extracting false confessions

(and see this).


as Paul Krugman wrote
in the New York Times:

Let’s say this slowly: the
Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq,
even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to
make them confess to the nonexistent link.

to NBC

  • Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the
    testimony of people who were tortured
  • At least four of
    the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report
    have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop
    being "tortured."
  • One of the Commission's main
    sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a
    confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ
  • The
    9/11 Commission itself doubted
    the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to

In fact, the self-confessed "mastermind" of 9/11
also confessed to crimes which he
could not have committed
. He later said that he gave the
interrogators a lot of false
information - telling them what he thought they wanted to hear - in an
attempt to stop the torture
. We also know that he was heavily
tortured specifically
for the purpose of trying to obtain false information about 9/11
specifically, that Iraq had something to do with it.



Remember, as discussed above, the torture
techniques used by the Bush administration to try to link Iraq and 9/11
were specifically geared
towards creating false confessions
(they were techniques created by the communists to be used in show




above-linked NBC news report quotes a couple of legal experts to this

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for
Constitutional Rights, says he is "shocked" that the Commission never
asked about extreme interrogation measures.

"If you’re sitting at
the 9/11 Commission, with all the high-powered lawyers on the
Commission and on the staff, first you ask what happened rather than
guess," said Ratner, whose center represents detainees at Guantanamo.
"Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical
document. If their
conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, therefore
their conclusions are suspect.

Greenberg, director of the Center for Law and Security at New York
University’s School of Law, put it this way: "[I]t should have relied on
sources not tainted. It calls into question how we were willing to use
these interrogations to construct the narrative."

interrogations were "used" to "construct the narrative" which the 9/11
Commission decided to use.

Remember (as explored in the book The
by respected journalist Philip Shenon), that the
Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission was an
administration insider whose area of expertise is the creation and
maintenance of "public myths" thought to be true, even if not actually
. He wrote
an outline of what he wanted the report to say very early in the
, controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze,
then limited the scope of the Commission's inquiry so that the
overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked (see this article and this article).



constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley stated:

9/11 Commission] was a commission that was really made for Washington -
a commission composed of political appointees of both parties that ran
interference for those parties - a commission that insisted at the
beginning it would not impose blame on individuals.

Obstructions of Justice

[Other examples of obstructions of
justice include the following:]

  • The chairs of both the 9/11
    Commission and the Joint Inquiry of the House and Senate Intelligence
    Committees into 9/11 said
    that government "minders" obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by
    intimidating witnesses
  • The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to
    the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such
    false statements
  • Investigators for the Congressional Joint
    Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even
    rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry
    sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then
    hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official
    stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the
    White House. As the New York Times notes:

    Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the
    Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of
    covering up evidence . . .

    * * *

    The accusation stems from
    the Federal Bureau of Investigation's refusal to allow investigators
    for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to
    interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the
    in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

    In his
    book "Intelligence Matters," Mr. Graham, the co-chairman of the
    Congressional inquiry with Representative Porter J. Goss, Republican of
    Florida, said an F.B.I. official wrote
    them in November 2002 and said "the administration would not sanction a
    staff interview with the source.''
    On Tuesday, Mr. Graham
    called the letter "a smoking gun" and said, "The reason for this
    cover-up goes right to the White House."

don't need to even discuss conspiracy theories about what happened on
9/11 to be incredibly disturbed about what happened after: the government's obstructions
of justice.

Indeed, the 9/11 Commissioners themselves are disturbed:

  • The
    Commission's co-chairs said
    that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our


  • The
    Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) - who led
    the 9/11 staff's inquiry - said
    "At some level of the government, at
    some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about
    what happened
    ". He also said "I was shocked at how different the truth was
    from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different
    story from what had been told to us and the public for two years....
    This is not spin. This is not true."

Afterword: Footnote 130 to chapter 5 of the
official 9/11 Commission Report states:

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in
advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading
activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some
unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an
innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options-
investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price-surged in the
parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines
on September 10-highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further
investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.
A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to
al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a
trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American
on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in
American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options
trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9,
which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence
examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other
agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to
investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many
foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently
suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept.
16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003);
SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners,
"Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen
interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).

Did the Commission have full access to information regarding put
options? Was the Commission misled, as it was on other issues? Was
evidence destroyed or fabricated? We will never know, as the underlying
documents have - according to the SEC - been destroyed.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Operafaust's picture

There's been a lot of sloppy thinking in this thread. Ad hominem, strawman, appeals to incompetence, if-then-also associations and outright denial of the obvious. After careful observation over the years I have come to realize that just as many 'trvthers' may already be inclined to distrust the Federal g*vernment and so are already prone to 'c*nspiracy the*ries' (I use quotation marks because I believe these terms are emotionally loaded) many of those who fanatically defend the official story do so because the idea that the government could do such a thing as part of an overall strategy is terrifying, therefore inconceivable. It's the equivalent of the guy who refuses to accept that his wife might be cheating on him because 'she could never do that to me.' Too painful to consider.

It's the equivalent of those who shake their heads after the infanticide trial and say, 'how can a parent do that to his/her own child?' It's the equivalent of the gulag prisoners in Siberia who wrote letters to Stalin because they thought the purges and mass roundups were happening because of rogue elements without the knowledge of their beloved leader.

I'm not a misanthrope. But I see human nature for what it is, and so long as motive, means, opportunity and reasonable doubt align, I will never refuse to entertain an idea simply because naivete won't allow me to accept it as a reality.




boogey_bank's picture

my 2 cents:
9/11 was an inside job.
You can find the seminal idea in this novel:
I think it has inspired the last 15 years of neocon warfare thinking.

Mr Drysdale's picture

Hi- I  am a longtime viewer, but 1st time poster here at ZH. I am posting mainly to bookmark this thread, and hopefully to ask a question that I have not seen addressed yet.

"IF" the fire(s) caused by the jet fuel in both towers was hot enough to  deform the structural steel, would there not be 'display samples' of these 'failed joints' in a showcase  backed by complete analysis at, say,CSM?

A_MacLaren's picture

I know I do not have the specialized knowledge that most all of these people that are calling for a new investigation.

But apparently Spitzer knows more than all of them, combined.

 ******** NEW SECTION     400+ Medical Professionals     NEW SECTION ********     220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials  1,200+ Engineers and Architects     250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals     400+ Professors Question 9/11     300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members

    200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals


dcb's picture

The first instinct of any large organization is to cover up and hide their mistakes. So if you believe an inside job or not there are ample reasons for the bush administration to cover up things. It isn't like this wouldn't be the first time our government did it.

1) At this point anyone who disputes the idea that our government used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq is living in fantasy. It is well documented that the Bush administration had this in mind since day one.

            So this by itself is a reason to cover. How do you think it would go over in tems of civil order if this was really investigated and prosecuted.

2) it is likley there were ample threads suggesting the attack before it happened. Therefore it is  huge failue of our government agencies.

      another reason to cover up

Folks think about things like the pentagon papers, what was going on with the BP well. governments always try to hide their screw ups. That doesn't mean the CIA blew up the towers.


The exact same thing has happened with the financial crisis. The idiots in charge (despite massive warnings) did nothing to prevent it, they were in bed with those in the industry, they were saying all will be fine while having meetings about what to do with the problem. Notice we still don't have the AIG e-mails and we own the company.


Time and time again we see the same behavior. If you have any doubts  think about it. At first the idiot in charge of the agency with the underwear bomber said it proved the system was working. They only changed their tune when it became too funny to continue with the fiction.

Think about the Pope and child molestation. same behavior it is about being "loyal" to the system. you get the reward for being a good trooper. It isn't about fixing the system . it is about saving face and maintaining the power structure.

Name an organization that doesn't behave in this manner. Look at how whistle blowers are punished. Look at Toyota and the breaks, what just came out about J&J with motrin. Tobacco makers and lung cancer. The list is too big to mention it all.

I am sure on of the conditions that was put on Obama before he was chosen to be president was that he had to promise not to look too far into things the Bush aministration did. At the same time he doesn't want people looking too far into things he i doing I am sure. Just like in communism, those in power don't want you peeking to far behind the curtin. Since I believe the real power is in the "elites"  that aren't elected nothing surprises me.


RobertShaw's picture

A few of the more glaring problems with the 9/11 story are Building 7 collapsing based on nothing.  The fact that the hole in the Pentagon outer wall is significantly smaller than the wingspan of the supposed airplane - the govt. seized all video footage of that "crash" by the way.  And three -- where are the bodies?  At the pentagon and for the plane that went down in the field in PA -- there were no bodies or significant plane wreckage.  When have you ever seen a plane crash without corpses?


Oh, and two more.  First, great intel by the "terrorists" to pick the one day that our country was running simulation air attacks using phantom jets.  Most of our air defense was engaged in a massive drill that day chasing phantom bogies.  Great guess, Osama.  Second, never in the history of steel buildings has one collapsed do to fire.  And yet we have THREE all on the same day. 

RobertShaw's picture

If anyone is interested, this has to be hands down the best documentary on the inconsistencies about the official 9/11 story ever made.  It's fantastic.

Problem Is's picture

No New Commission
Prosecutors... Public Treason Trials... If found guilty... the Electric Chair.

Just like the Rosenbergs got...

Batting First For The State Sponsored Terrorism Team
Zelikow... you make take the stand...

optimator's picture

Batting First For The State Sponsored Terrorism Team
Zelikow... you may take the stand...

Your Honor, I plead the Sixth Amendment.

Judge:  You mean Fifth Amendment.

Zelikow:  I mean Six Amendment, I refuse to answer the following question on the grounds it may tend to eliminate me.

King_of_simpletons's picture

Documentary in contention (as stated above)



Zero - an investigation on 9-11





King_of_simpletons's picture

And how miraculously convenient that they "discovered" $1 Trillion worth of Lithium, Gold and other mineral deposits in Afganistan yesterday. Simply a festivus miracle.

King_of_simpletons's picture

I do not believe that this was GW's fault, but something like a conspiracy that took advantage of his presidency.

Nihilarian's picture


Not sure if you addressed this, but what about the plane hitting the Pentagon? How was this debunked? (Referring to: lack of evidence, small damage to building, no damage where jet engines would be given the trajectory, etc)?

MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

I'm pretty sure it is DEBUNKED is when SPITZ says it is DEBUNKED.


illyia's picture

So very ef-ing suprised to learn...

Great job, GW.

Keep up the excellent work.


Buck Johnson's picture

They destroyed the documents because they know who made those puts, and it wasn't Osama bin laden.  Because if it was him and other people connected to the terrorists, they would have said see see he was behind this or that.  They would have lauded this evidence all over the place.  The reason it wasn't was because it showed it was done by people in the West and the names may be familiar and/or connected to people in the govt.  Also why destroy those tapes, and why was all these shenannigans if done in a regular court room would have had people in jail.  It's because that commission was a paper bull, a paper tiger.  It had no power and everyone knew it and told it didn't from the whitehouse to the other agencies that could have helped the commission.

Friends, that day 9/11 and the days before and after will never be told to the regular public.  People in govt. and out do know what happened but won't tell for many reasons.  The one big reason is that if it was told what truly happened and who allowed it to happen, it would rip this country apart.  So we go along and whistle through the graveyard not knowing that every step we take down the road to allowing things to happen that is wrong gets us closer to the final destination of what happens to all empires that refuse to change.  Remember how we are told it's impossible to have a dictatorship in the US because our govt. is so beaurocratic that it's impossible for one man or woman to do it.  But that sword can cut both ways, it's good they can't make it do what he or she wants but at the same time he or she can't make it not do what IT may or may not want.  So if you get a society and a govt. moving a certain way you may not be able to control it and all you as a leader or leaders can do is to ride this ship of state to whatever destination it's fated to have.


organicfarmer's picture

What is the largest organization in the world?   US armed forces (military)

What is the largest air force?   US Air force

What is the second largest air force?   US Navy

What consumes the most oil in the world?  US military

King_of_simpletons's picture

Kind of disagree only because I do not want anyone to live in a bubble.

brodix's picture

Things don't happen for reasons. They happen due to causes. What this means is that there is no single narrative which explains what happens, but a bunch of intersecting forces collapsing into events.

 Was it blowback from all the other peoples we have run over, much like volcanos and earthquakes result from one tectonic plate sliding over another?

 Or was it an underemployed military complex desperately searching for another adversary, being put to work by a resource industry seriously concerned about third world nationalism taking over potential supplies, with the marriage arranged by a definitively amoral financial sector?

 Or some combination of the two?

 Probably more to the point, how much does it really matter? Either way, we are seeing a system running up against its limits, reacting blindly and to its own further detriment.

 The Chinese, Russians and Iranians may well win this one by default.

MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

I bet your Mom tells you all the time how imaginative you are.  And your creative writing teacher probably says the same.

Your PHILOSOPHY / LOGIC teacher says FAIL....

But keep up the grandiose thinking -- I am sure that the oedipal prize you seek is just around the corner.

Spitzer's picture

you forgot to explain to everyone that the US has no real enemies, only fake ones so they could stage fake attacks so they could start fake wars.

MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

Maybe if you took your clothes off and danced around on the bar a little bit...Maybe that will get you some attention?

Try it.  I'll give you a dollar.

Nikki's picture

The simplest explanation is that government employees or high level types who were privy to the infamous August warning memo bought some options just in case something happened. They probably didn't imagine the worst case scenario coming true, but it did. Their trades and identities were kept secret by and administration that was adept at lieing. Perhaps foreign nationals were involved too.

Where is the wreckage of the plane that hit the Pentagon ?. Had anyone ever seen any ?. Strange.

FourWude's picture

On the day when the British finally admitted, (still plenty of questions unanswered no doubt) that the shootings and killings of Northern Irish protesters on "Bloody Sunday" were unarmed, innocent people. Almost 40 years of cover-ups and the facts slowly emerge. One big lie, spread beyond belief of how the slaughtered were armed, of how they were terrorists, of the spread of mis/dis-information. The way the British govt sold and destroyed the evidence and guns used by British forces. Of the use of False Flag operations to demonise the NI people and continue a military occupation of the country.


I have no doubt in my mind that sooner or later the truth on 9/11 and 7/7 as well as other False Flag events will emerge. And when the truth does come out, I guarantee you it will take everyone invested and those that bought the lies down with them. A sea-change is going to occur and it ain't gonna be pretty.

Spitzer's picture

Convince me that the good ol US has no real enemies. They are all just fake enemies ? Binladen is just a puppet right ?

MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

Who on earth are you talking to?  Dude?

CustomersMan's picture


Is there any point in bringing up Odigo and the messages that went out 2 hours prior to WTC1 being hit?

MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

Sure.  People are mentioning the notion of warnings having preceeded the attacks.

The ODIGO situation is not well-known but the info is easy to find and (gasp!) MAINSTREAM!

And it has that quality that make you go "WTF!?!?!?!"

almost_have_a_name's picture

Government employees are not intelligent enough to pull off anything. Think

about this, your a government employee, near the top of the department structure,

and your boss goes in for a physical. He ends up dying on the treadmill during

a stress test.


Another, separate, bureaucracy pulls your name form a hat, now you the man.


As the years come and go you are responsible for picking new hires. Do you pick

people that are capable (of replacing you) ? No. You pick the dumbest sacks

of shit, incapable of any skill (other than secretly masturbating in their cubicle).


And this is where we are now. Devolution in charge of our fate.


sgt_doom's picture

"Government employees are not intelligent enough to pull off anything. Think"

Your diatribe and drivel added absolutely nothing to the discussion -- troll!

Instead of "think" try,

thinking analytically -- for a change!

Were you not a complete and total twit, troll, you would be aware that a remarkably similar scenario (ostensibly a counterterrorist simulation) was created several years before 9/11/01 in the Pentagon using military and private contractors.

If you weren't a twit, troll, you might also have figured out that the similar terrorist simulation exercise taking place that day at the National Reconnaissance Office (now 95% privatized), not only caused confusion by its similarity, but most importantly and by design, emptied out the operations center (evacuation as part of the exercise) so no one was on hand to manually task the "eyes in the sky" in geostationary orbit over the Mid Atlantic Seaboard, which could have observed the airspace above NYC and the Pentagon.

The planning was completely and utterly intense! One wonders if Dov Zakheim ever met much with Richard Bissell at those CFR meetings before Bissell died?

Gully Foyle's picture

What happened to all that Gold, and assorted precious stuff, stored in the towers vault basements?

Funny this rarely never gets mentioned. Bush had a scheduled meeting with various economic bigwigs that day. None were in the towers. Anywhoo, I think it was at Offutt  airforce base. Just the place wound up at later in the day.


Also, and this seems to have dropped from existence. I was watching the hearings on C-Span the next few days after. One of the Black congressmen stated his daughter worked in one of the towers. She had been warned not to go into work on 911. When they investigated the person who warned his daughter her appartment was empty even the rugs were removed.



Waterfallsparkles's picture

A lot of people were warned but they are not talking.  They are still alive and probably are members of the elite.

Sean7k's picture

If a person cannot look at the operations of a private banking cartel that has been empowered to tax without representation and compromise our nation's wealth- you deserve the government you defend.
If you cannot see that every war since WWII was unnecessary and therefore your government killing it's youth- you are too stupid to understand how your government feels about you.
If you don't realize that you are poisoned by your food, water and air with the complicity of your representatives- your ignorance will ravage you.
We do not need conspiracy theories to question our totalitarian regime. While many may be true, our leaders has such distain for our intellectual and disciplinary capabilities- they can afford to tell the truth.
That is the saddest part.

Mesquite's picture

Rather than attacking each other...All one has to do, is their own research..There is LOTS of info out there...(And avoid the kool-aid..) Until one has made the effort, it is not likely they'll be convinced with a few snippets of info here..Me thinks it's all part of the long-running chess game..

Be safe all...

iamrage's picture

Professor Plum in the Conservatory with a Revolver!  This is old news.  9/11 was an inside job.  We all know this.


I have some "Loose Change" if anyone needs a healthy dose of factual truthiness.

Spitzer's picture

you cling to faith in conspirators, you are a coward

MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

You know Spitz I think the Census is still hiring...Prolly a better fit for you. 

This troll thing -- you're not very good at it.  Just sayin...

optimator's picture

The powers that pulled this off now are at the point where they don't care what we know, it's all ancient history as is the Maine, Lusitainia, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of tonkin.  And even if we do figure it out exactly what are we going to do about it?  They have that covered too.

RockyRacoon's picture

Now that I've read the post and the comments, I gotta go take a shower.

Treeplanter's picture

The traders were most likely Saudi princes.  Link 911 to the Saudi gov't and Bush would have had to go after the Saudis.  Several suspect princes did die accidentally on purpose during the following months.  This destruction of documents is treason. Protecting our enemies.    

Waterfallsparkles's picture

Does anyone remember that Bush hired a private air craft (when there were no flights allowed) for the Bin Lauden family that was in the United States?  I always wondered why they were here and Bush needed to protect them.

Freddie Krugerrand's picture

So, there you have it.  Even foreign terrorists are front running the market.  Am I the only one making legitimate trades??!! 

Joe Davola's picture

9/11 conspiracy stirs the pot almost as much as the alternative energy discussions!

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

When you find zero point energy please get back to me.  in the mean time you can reach me at