This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
SEC: Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 Put Options
On September 19, 2001, CBS reported:
Sources
tell CBS News that the afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were
sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market.An
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.Sources
say they have never seen that kind of imbalance before, reports CBS
News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. Normally the numbers are fairly
even.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.
On
September 29, 2001, the San Francisco Chronicle pointed
out:
"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."
***
There
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.***
Spokesmen
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.***
Last
weekend, German central bank president Ernst Welteke said a study
pointed to "terrorism insider trading" in those stocks.
The
Chronicle illustrated the story with the following chart:
On October 19, 2001, the Chronicle wrote:
On
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
attacks.
***
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
government.
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
know.
Specifically,
David Callahan - executive editor of SmartCEO - submitted a Freedom of
Information Act request to the SEC regarding the pre-9/11 put options.
The
SEC responded:
This
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.
If
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.
I
wrote
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
employees.The official 9/11 Commission Report states:
Chapters
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.
The
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
2005: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.
And
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
Commission....
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.
Footnotes
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.Abu
Zubaida was well-known to the FBI as being literally crazy. The Washington
Post 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:
[L]argely
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.For
example:
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."
***
"They
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
say:
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.
"In
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."
***
"The
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
Evidence
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
tapes.
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
interrogated:“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
investigations.Indeed, 9/11 Commission
co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:
Those
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?
Initially,
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.Trying
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.
Indeed,
the Senate Armed Services Committee found that the
U.S. used torture techniques specifically aimed at extracting false confessions
(and see this).
And
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.[A]ccording
to NBC
news:
- 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
themselvesIn 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
trials).
***
The
above-linked NBC news report quotes a couple of legal experts to this
effect: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."...Karen
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."The
interrogations were "used" to "construct the narrative" which the 9/11
Commission decided to use.Remember (as explored in the book The
Commission 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
true. He wrote
an outline of what he wanted the report to say very early in the
process, 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).***
As
constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley stated:[The
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.Other
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
- The tape of interviews of air
traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by
crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and
then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is
free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times
- 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:
Senator
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
landlord 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."
We
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
investigation"
- 9/11
Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be
some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have
access . . . ."
- 9/11
Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false
statements we were getting"
- 9/11
Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised";
and "One of these days we will have to get the full story
because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House
wants to cover it up"
- 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.
»
- advertisements -
Mr Lennon Hendrix
Dude please, we all know the Ancients had it. Some of the ZEDPM's have been recovered from various gate addresses. But the Government keeps it all hidden in Warehouse thirteen.
I remember looking down from a building nearby where our offices were located and seeing girders being pulled from the spoil pile with 45 degree cuts on both ends. The 45 degree angles are standard practice in big-stick demolition to keep the footprint of the pile within specs.
The north tower did have a serious fire while under construction and survived. No steel-framed structure has ever collapsed due to fire. The streak remains intact.
Debunked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXxynEDpwrA
Not Debunked dumbazz.
The claim was - No steel-framed structure has ever collapsed due to fire.
Your link goes off into tangental never-neverland ... hmmm just like you do Spitz
Show me a steel-framed structure that has collapsed due to fire. I'm still waiting.
Jet fuel is kerosene. Propane burns hotter than jet fuel. If you leave your grill on, ie. forget to turn it off, does the steel fail? Does it melt? No.
Please show me a steel-framed structure that has collapsed due to fire.
you just say debunked with your one little youtube video. that piece of trash doesn't debunk anything, it just puts your little brainwashed mind at ease. Makes your little self lies easier to swallow.
+10
The video is nothing...Might as well be a link to reruns of "The A Team".
BTW -- photos showing full-sized WTC girders with 45 degree angle cuts on them are widely available.
Let Spitz take some initiative if he wished to see the photos for himself. Oh yeah, HE ALREADY DEBUNKED IT!
(his little script has just been torn-up today, his handlers are gonna look real bad over this)
And for another criminal conspiracy (and remotely connected, if in a somewhat tenuous manner):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQV85hvGo8w&feature=player_embedded
Must see clip!
this movie discusses what i think is one of the most compelling arguments in regards to the put options, and other bizzarre incriminating behavior surrounding 9/11. i agree, as does the thesis of this film, that the $$$ is not enough for anybody to bother with... please watch, it is one of the best films i have seen on the subject, even though the budget is extremely limited:
http://www.archive.org/details/NonCopirightDoc__OpenComplicityAnatomyofthe911CoverUp
First off Bush never made the connection of Saddam to 9/11 but there sure are a lot of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
http://alturl.com/b2mj
And those documents were probably destroyed to protect the Saudis since they most likely knew what was about to happen.
LOL. I took the bait and followed the link.
Forgive me for not taking the time to actually read the article which is entitled:
"Saddam and Al Qaeda Sitting in a Tree…of course they had a Collaborative Relationship, duh."
Fucking child.
Thank you MIMDF for saving us from the waste of time.
No! It can't be.
Dude, please, next you'll be saying that trillions of dollars were electronically moved offshore to hedge funds and OFCs (and that hedge funds grew tremendously in 2002!) from the WTC Towers in the preceding 16 hours prior to the morning of 9/11/01. (Darn! Sure wish those computer systems in the two towers hadn't been destroyed!)
And you'll be claiming that the unwitting operational personnel (remote piloting hardware/software developers, creators of the original [9/11] terrorist scenario for counterterrorist measures, and certain Flight 800 investigation personnel) were spread among those four airliners which crashed that day, and that the data on the $2.3 trillion missing from the DOD (which the Pentagon comptroller mentioned on 9/10/01) was destroyed when the airliner crashed into the Petagon's west wall!
Geez, and you'll probably mention that the profits on those puts went to Alex Brown accounts, and that Alex Brown (at least at that time) was owned by Deutsche Bank - involved with moving some of those trillions that day -- darn, wished their systems hadn't been destroyed also.
Just please don't mention the involvement of the Blackstone Group, AIG, Veritas Capital, the SecDef and VP. Puuuhhhllease.....
Or even suggest that the perfect crime had been committed that day --- it interferes with American mythology!
Oopsy....
Beyond the immediate carnage, 9/11 was pretty successful in attacking the fabric of America. Within ten years, we've:
1) Pulled out of Saudi Arabia (Bin Laden's #1 demand);
2) Created "us" and "them" camps which effectively handed Al Queda a bunch of new allies and well-wishers;
3) Surrendered the moral high ground, and the perception that America was more fair and just, through widespread torture;
4) Threw out the rule of law domestically and abroad in too many ways to even begin listing here;
5) Created widespread spying programs on our own people;
6) Are in the process of bankrupting ourselves through one un-necessary war of our own choosing (Iraq), and one war of attrition in the precisely the location that helped break the USSR militarily and fiscally (Afghanistan);
7) Made quite clear through the example of countless administration officials that the law doesn't apply to the Executive Branch;
8) Have established lying to the American people as the default form of communication;
9) Repeated and reinforced the lies so steadfastly that now they can never be admitted;
10) Finally driven the two parties to where they've been headed for a long time: complete absolutism and obstructionism.
I would say that the operation of 9/11 has been, and continues to be, an unqualified success for the bad guys.
+1. Well said!
Respect
Brilliant post. Thanks for summing things up nicely.
Great points while avoiding the sensational, but getting back to the sensational for a minute:
Whatever became of that missing $2.3 trillion the Pentagon comptroller spoke of the day before?
Why did I happen to read of the west wall (and only the west wall) of the Pentagon being reinforced in Structure magazine about a year before the airliner flying into it?
Whatever become of Eureka GGN, responsible for the optic fiber cabling (involved in installing it by blowing through those under-floor HVAC vents the week prior to 9/11/01)?
Geez, installing all that fiber optics in the two towers must have been incredibly prohibitively expensive?
Why was Blackstone Group so involved in everything pertaining to the WTC? (Brokering the largest and quickest real estate deal in NYC history ....... being put in charge of the $1 billion captive insurance fund after the attack?)
Why did Veritas Capital invest so heavily in all the right players just prior to it happening?
And what was Raytheon Aerospace (owned by Veritas Capital) involvement?
Geez, and AIG, so many pointers there, and zero degrees of separation to Marsh & McLennan (Stephan Friedman a principal at that time), and ILFC (largest leasor of commercial aircraft).
So many connections, so many questions.....
great post sgt_doom - forced myself to read to the end of the thread before posting again, and you listed the "missing trillions" for me, thanks!
"$2.3 trillion" unaccounted for - and that was back before the word "trillion" was tossed about with nary a shrug. . .
What about the Building being purchased about 1 month before the attacks. Yes, and were is that 2.3 Trillion and the Gold that was in Building 7?
WFS - buildings a financial black hole owned by the Port Authority of New York. They were leased, then insured by the leasee "Lucky" Larry Silverman so he would be paid off in billions [I think he got away with $7B] in case of a terrorist attack.
There's even a Goldman connection to the guy who ran the Port Authority negotiations with Larry.
9/11 - "Lucky Larry Silverstein." Follow The Money | Love for Life
In 1999 2.3 trillion missing
In 2000 1.1 trillion missing
Here is a link where Rumsfield and Tina Jonas (Comptroller) are questioned by Rep.Cynthia McKinney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eraYsZJrew&feature=related
keep up the good work +1111111111111
keep up the good work +1111111111111
oh yes we do need to discuss conspiracy theories.....daddy bush ordered baby bush to destroy the wtc for 3 reasons 1. to impose more totalitarian controls via the patriot act ( even the name of the legislation conjures up kim il jung ) 2. destroy enron evidence housed in wtc 7 linking the bushes to both osama (aka tim osman) and to hussein (not be confused with barry) 3. provide a pretext for invasion of iraq and afghanistan to steal its oil and mineral weath...
neil bush profited handsomely on the insurance end...not sure what jeb's role in this was except maybe to train the cia agents doing the deed in florida...
the nanothermite developed at sandia labs came in quite handy for controlled demolition work....
www.ae911truth.org
Hey,not for nothing,if that was a controlled demo,it was not too controlled,there was steel sticking out of building's across the west side highway,the wintergarden was nearly collapsed by falling debris,had to be 300 ft. from the closest tower,from what I saw,tower 7 was bent across vesey st. the north side of it's skeleton bent in a nice gentle arch across the street,the south side that faced the north tower was all crumpled up,two very different mode's of failure,not consistent with a controlled collapse
I'm sure everybody has seen the picture of Building 7 that looks exactly like you describe.
Oh shit, there is no such picture. But I know -- 'you saw it with your own eyes.'
Your assertion is not consistent with the research conducted by folks who know a @#$% all lot more about physics and architecture than you do.
What about the GOLD that dissapeared in Building 7? What about Bush chartering a private plane for the BinLaden family to get out of the Country?
hahaha, good one.
You have faith in 9/11 conspirators because like religion, there is no definitive proof.
Faith
Spitz, you speak from both sides of your mouth. On other articles you imply not to trust the government with anything they say. Here you eat their shit up and lick their arse for dessert.
You don't see a difference between fudging numbers and mass murder ?
Fudging and lick ass should never be linked in the same conversation.
They don't and you think they draw a moral line somewhere. Next time someone loses their job, house and retirement and resorts to offing themselves, I'm holding you personally responsible.
Please don't take him seriously
BOTH OF YOU ARE TROLLING!!!!
YOU CONTINUE TO POST THE SAME TRITE STATEMENTS!
GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!
Mr. LH,
i'm always refering to Spitzer and i may be trolling but arguing with this trojan horse will only ligitimize his corruption. Please ignore him.
Who cares who you are referring to. You are trolling. Period. I'll say it again: I junked you above. Will you just fuck off or shut the fuck up. This particular reply confirms my previous opinion of the depth of your contribution. You, are a Richard Cranium, AKA Dick Head. Fuuuuuuck oooofffffffff.!
I respect your opinion.
Yep. Who you gonna trust, yourself or this clown----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOMKdILRM5I
"It smells of sulfur."
and Bush stepped down when, 9/10? His replacement was a FBI whistleblower too. His first day? 9/11....he was killed in the buiding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHJHAp49Lh8
I was just going to mention Marvin, but I checked your video link first LH. Thanks.
Excellent presentation.
I highly recommend viewing. Spitzer where are you? Refute some of this?
Terrorists are not to be caught.
They aren`t in Iraq, Iran, etc.
They are in the governments.
As soon as we understand that, everything just becomes so elementary to understand. GS, the FED, wars, elections.
It`s the sad reality.
Damn financial terrorist! When will the camera's point towards them?
our future, everything depends on 9/11 truth. if you dont understand what happened on that day, i dont believe it is possible to have any understanding of geopolitics or the world. thank you so much for posting... i reposted on facebook.
First, FB is the devil. Second, what you say is accurate; if one understands 9/11 even at the simplest form-that it was an inside job- all doors will be opened.
are you serious ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXxynEDpwrA
Please don't take him seriously
damn it spitzer! You posted this same lame vid three times!!!
Here! Nobel winners and Air Force pilots say you need to do your homework.
Zero: An Investigation Into 9-11 - part 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-YqET96OO0
Nobel winner's ??? hahaha
If Nobel winners know as much about 9/11 as they do about economics then I rest my case.