This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -
Please don't take him seriously
The Nobel for economics is a dog and pony show; it is not officially a Nobel prize either, by the way. I am not sure there is one economist in "Zero".
When was the truth last told? I'm guessing a long time ago, in a galaxy far away.
5 million?
waw...
GODDAMMIT! Just once. Just once, I would like to be pleasantly surprised about the disclosure of something by our government. Nope. Eff U American people! You keep your nosey little fingers out of things so that TPTB can continue to run things into the ground.
WOW, and it only took 9 yrs to find it all. LOL
CBS
"When The Stocks Fell, $5 Million Profit Was Made"
SF
"Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines..." __ Seems like a lot of trouble for 2.5 millionYou miss the point. Someone could not keep their greed in their pants and gave away a clue. The USGov, then promptly destroyed the clue. Why?
Re. More Naked Greed tied to the slaughter. How much did Larry Silverman walk away with?
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/750
The whole Market collapsed. Not just American Airlines.
"No matter how cynical you get, you can never keep up." - Lily Tomlin
+ 100.
so very, very true.
If you want facts, you are a UFO clown.
Exactly. Lump everyone in some group of people that believe Lizard men rule the world. GW, thank you so much for writting this. You do justice for those that need it most.
9/11 was an inside job.
In the movie "Zero" an Air Force pilot claims he could only make the aerial maneuver that hit the pentagon 1 out of 20 times.
The "hijackers", half of whom are still alive, failed their written tests and were never allowed to even enter the flight simulator. THEY COULD NOT FLY PLANES.
Architects and Engineers claim that WTC buildings 1 and 2 were controlled demolitions.
Building seven disappears before your eyes due to small office fires on only a few floors.
wtc 7 collapse:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
I am junking you because I developed my masters thesis in fire protection engineering on the analysis of structural steel and fire suppression systems within multiple buildings on the WTC campus. I can personally discredit every conspiracy theory rattling around in that empty skull of yours. It's hard to believe that the federal government was willing to kill almost 4,000 american civilians, thousands upon thousand american troops, millions of muslims, coerce the entire field of professional engineering and intelligence analysts, and yet the forgot to rub out a blathering nutbag like you, doesn't quite seem reasonable to me.
But you won't actually act on that threat will you? Go on, humor us.
Your language and tone seem beneath someone with your level of academic training. Are you a very recent graduate or perhaps being untruthful?
Your avatar strikes me as ironic when you consider the old saw: "On the internet, no one know THAT YOU ARE A DOG."
".. I developed my masters thesis in fire protection engineering on the analysis of structural steel and fire suppression systems within multiple buildings on the WTC campus."
Evidently Physics 101 was nowhere to be found in any of your curriculums. The steady-state collapse of the two towers and #7 belies the fundamental falling bodies formula, there was plenty of resistance, yet the three collapsed as only buildings do when the targets of controlled demolition (and I've seen more than my fair share of buildings collapse, sonny!).
I corresponded some time back with a science fiction writer who claimed as you do -- I presented him with some simple facts and after several years, and many reminders on my part, the charletan has yet to respond.
"It's hard to believe that the federal government was willing to kill almost 4,000 american civilians, thousands upon thousand american troops, millions of muslims, coerce the entire field of professional engineering and intelligence analysts, ..."
The "federal government" isn't responsible for those murders -- elements within the government at several of the highest appointed offices, together with actors within the Private Sector, did so conspire in their demise.
As for coercing intel analysts -- you might do some relatively simple research, beginning with Wayne Madsen's articles on all those intel analysts (State's Bureau of intel. and Research, NSA, etc.) who conveniently fell off the tops of buildings during Bush's rush to invade Iraq.
And there has been some recanting from professional science/engineering types (including NIST's fire science chief, along with some FBI crime lab types) once they've retired.
Ever heard of staying current, dood?
As murdering without conscience: ever heard of Bhopal? Or numerous other disasters? Ever heard of those labor organizers murdered by Chiquita-hired assassins in South America? Or those protesters murdered by oil company mercenaries in Nigeria and other parts of Africa?
Who do you think defended those companies in court, dood? Your friendly neighborhood attorney general, Eric Holder, when he was with that five-star shyster firm.
Speaking as a former US military (who has been used as a cutout on sensitive missions) your high, appointed DOD types have no problems in sacrificing its citizens, dood!
Try reading Zbigniew Brzezinski's memoirs, dood. What you'll learn about his, America's and the historical involvement in destroying Afghanistan will probably all be brand new info to your data-starved brain, dood!
Idiots and pseudo-sci types like yourself make me want to puke, dood, you're clownish.
Further homework: If memory serves, I believe on the bottom of page 931 (or 930) of the 9/11 Commission Report, there is mention of the "need" for a national ID card of some sort by the Markle Foundation.
Research the Markle Foundation, who belongs and has belonged to it, and their input into the present administration (all administrations back to Nixon are highly suspect and culpable).
And look into the Center for a New American Security, its connections with the Markle Foundation, and who belongs to the Center, etc.
Suddenly, you're on your way to an education of sorts.
Tx for the Markle heads up Seargent - googled and enlightened.
Ben Franklin said, "Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead". My problem with all these elaborate conspiracy theories is there is no way they could be kept secret. Eventually, one of the hundreds or thousands of people involved would blow the whistle or tell the wrong person. No way a conspiracy this involved would stay a secret.
" My problem with all these elaborate conspiracy theories is there is no way they could be kept secret."
The problem with this infinite iteration troll, is that it never makes any sense in light of the many criminal conspiracies committed on a yearly, or decade or many-years basis.
If said troll, or troll program (as is more likely the case today), was actually familiar with any history, or had ever, ever read any criminal cases where certified fraud examiners are involved, the troll (or troll program) would know of the numerous cases where incredibly large number of people, or co-conspirators, actively kept their mouths shut.
Obviously, there's a reason why whistle-blowers are so few and far between and why Bradley Birkenfeld is sitting in jail, while one hears no other sounds forthcoming from the departments within the UBS tax evasion division.
And, had you bothered reading the full comments at this blog post, said troll (or troll program) would realize that the vast majority of unwitting operational personnel died that day aboard those four airliners, and the WTC towers --- simply review previous comments underneath my handle.
An estimated 17 to 23 (max) individuals were knowingly involved - and monitoring the events concurrently - aware of the crime which was actively transpiring.
A quick review for the mentally-lazy: trillions of dollars were electronically transferred in the preceding 12 to 16 hours (later tracked in cached listings) from three specific network centers withing the two towers -- those people -- following work orders -- died that day (although it is highly doubtful they had any idea what was going on -- other than a heavier-than-usual workload) in the towers destruction.
Those people involved with the remote piloting hardware/software development, and the creation of said counterterrorist scenario utilized that day, the physicist with the Directed Energy section of the Naval Warfare Center, and specific individuals involved with the investigation into Flight 800 (admittedly, we still haven't found out why they were aboard -- but have some fairly concrete suspicions) -- who may have come forward in the aftermath -- died aboard those four airliners.
[An aircraft flying above -- utilizing an existing laser configuration -- set off the pressure charges in the two towers -- such a stunt had been developed during the Strategic Defense Initiative and was used to mislead the Soviets into believing the USA had the capability of airborne-based laser destruction -- but the laser only altered barometric pressure to set off previously-planted pressure charges.]
Several ladies were aboard that day -- one a well-insured number three wife of an appointed federal official, the other a mistress of a highly-connected and married attorney, an attorney who also happened to be involved with the investigation of Flight 800.
That should be exhaustive enough for even the most idiotic of trolls! (Or troll programs.)
On the Internet, no one knows if you're a supercomputer -- or a honey trap!
Killing 3000 citizens in one event and getting away with it demonstrates a certain ruthlessness.
And they're good and well practiced at this.
Ozwald was the love gunman. Congressman, later to be PONTUS, Gerald Ford was one of 7 committee members. Rumsfeld and Cheney were in on the big one as they were congressional aides to Ford.
You should read Phillip Zelikow's writings. He is a genius and he feels totally different than you do about this matter. He not only thinks something like this is possible, he thinks it should be managed as regular course of business.
Give him a read. I think you will be completely riveted.
If you do not already know about the concept of MEMEs then you may find it beneficial to first read Richard Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene'.
Get busy Dude -- you've got a lot of reading to do.
Who said the Federal Government is in control of America? So anyway, start refuting the molten pits, the evidence of Thermite and the 1 2 3 never before seen systematic implosions caused by 2 aircrafts randomly striking steel reinforced concrete towers. I too have some engineering knowledge. Say 20 years with 4 dedicated to Building Engineering. Whenever you're ready Whizbang dude.
They were all steel frame above ground
Whizbang = dumbshit
1208 architectural and engineering professionals agree with me:http://cms.ae911truth.org/
Did they actually award you with a degree?
Bull Fucking Shit.
If the Bush admin. and the CIA where smart enough to pull off 9/11, then why didn't they plant some WMD's in Iraq so they would not look so stupid by not finding any ?
Why wouldn't they just plant WMD's in Iraq and then just stage the finding of them ?
If you think the Bush admin. staged 9/11 to justify war then you are delusional. They knew that staging an attack like 9/11 would not convince people like you to go to war anyway, so why do it ?
spitzer your argument about the WMD doesnt make any sense. even if they did sneak them in they still wouldnt have got enough worldwide support for an invasion. 911 generated that support. yes they could have planted WMD to say "i told you so" but the country had already been invaded, the goal had been acheived.
3000 innocent americans were murdered in cold blood on that day, if you dont care why that is up to you.
But tell me. If the 911 commision's report is so truthful why has there still not been a criminal trial??????? it was almost 10 years ago and the ring leader is still in custody. Put him on trial and lets see what charges he faces. They cant hold a trial because they know the case wont stack up and they dont want to bring more public attention to this inside job. They want the public to forget and people like you are trying to make sure that happens.
Say it LOUDER Spitzer. Repeat it again and again.
How's that working for you...
BTW -- the boundaries of what you're discussing keep expanding -- yet no one seems to take the bait...Why do you think that is?
I don't think I have seen THAT MEMO. But I would love to see it, very much so.
July 5 2009 CBS-
(AP) The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
Its funny that you keep asking about the WMDs. You really did believe that was the reason when we went in. hahahahahhahahhah that's so cute. Spitzer defender of the Federal government and Television, he does what he's told and never asks questions. He's a good little drone.
you dont get it.
Whether it was the reason or not doesn't matter. The point is, why wouldn't the US just plant some WMD's in Iraq so they could save face by finding them if they are so good at pulling off staged attacks like 9/11 ?
So then why did we go into Iraq please explain..
This is why.
On November 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15-0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.
This doesn't reinforce your argument.
The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the United Kingdom, the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations, particularly with Russia and France. France questioned the phrase "serious consequences" and stated repeatedly that any "material breach" found by the inspectors should not automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like "...all necessary means…" in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter
Resolution 1441's prohibition on giving Iraq new opportunities for compliance, and that no further authorization from the UN would be sought before an invasion of Iraq (see 2003 invasion of Iraq). The USA and Britain, while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions. Non-permanent Security Council member Spain declared itself with the USA and Britain. Nevertheless, this position taken by the Bush administration and its supporters, has been and still is being disputed by numerous legal experts. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.
Factual questions about the Iraqi declaration still remain. To date the contents have still not been made public for independent scrutiny.[13] When the UK government was asked to state where in the Iraqi government's declaration there were false or inaccurate statements, the reply was that it was a confidential matter and that "huge quantities of documents remain to be translated."
This did not give them the authority to go to war according to the UN Security Council.
Spitzer would like very much to pull you and everyone else as far away from the original topic as possible.
HERE IS THE OPENING FROM GeoWash's ARTICLE THAT WE ARE COMMENTING ON:
Spitzer refuses to abide by this. It is not accidental or even just obsessive; methinks.
Well done MIMDF
I agree. It appears he's a thread-jacker on a mission.
Maybe it was the FED. Maybe all of the Banks were Short the Market. That would explain all of the missing Trading records. Maybe the Fed removed all of the Gold in Building 7 before the attacks. We know the Fed likes to finance Wars. Bush being a little slow decided to attack Iran. The Fed got to finance the War, plus if they took the Gold from Building 7 before it collapsed, shorted the Market and then financing of the War they made out pretty well.
Please don't take him seriously
Will you just fuck off! I junked you, you dick head.
Please don't take him seriously
You have been here for 5 weeks. and you show no respect for this place.
"If the Bush admin. and the CIA where smart enough to pull off 9/11, then why didn't they plant some WMD's in Iraq ..."
Negative, wasn't the Bush admin nor the CIA who were involved - although evidence points to involvement of Cheney and Rumsfeld (at least office of SecDef and VP).
If you were paying attention at the time, the CIA's counterproliferation operation (directed WMDs), Brewster Jennings, was compromised when covert agent and supervisor there, Valerie Plame was outed.
Ms. Blame and outfit had recently intercepted a shipment of VX gas which was being smuggled across the Turkish border into Iraq, most probably to be planted there as a WMD.
The Brewster Jennings op was in the midst of tracking it, when they were compromised and ceased operation.
oh, so they sucesfully pulled off 9/11 with not one flaw but they failed at sneaking some WMD's across an undefined border.
Nice try, next
Please don't take him seriously
Plenty of flaws, dood! Flight 93 didn't work out as planned -- last minute substitution due cracked cockpit window.
But the trillions got transferred out -- so it was a blazing success, and all those SEC investigation records destroyed in Building 7.
And outstanding, malevolent, horrific success.
I'd like to call your attention to one fact that has not been explored here. The government mandates destruction of its records on a timely basis, and this is exceedingly frustrating for those in the Freedom of Information Act community. I have no idea what schedule the SEC uses, but it is entirely possible that this is the answer here, at least for this issue.
And I am sure they transfeered out all of the missing Gold in Building 7. Probably Trillions.
trillions? article says 5m$
trillions? vs. 5m$
You are confusing the short sale gain described above in the article, with the contents of building #7, Iraq War, Afgan War, etc.