TWO INTERVIEWS: LBJ's Mistress on JFK Assassination AND Jean Hill,"The Lady in Red" - Witness


Madeleine Duncan Brown, LBJ's mistress tells her story - and what a story!



Jean Hill - "the lady in red" who was in Dallas and saw it all. She tells her storyin this radio interview below - and shares the mistake that saved her life (at least until after this interview).

Go to this page:

At the bottom of the page click on:

Show #8

Featured Guest: Jean Hill

Author of "The Last Dessentting Witness

Part One

Jean Hill

Part Two

Jean Hill

Part Three

Jean Hill

9/11: Follow the Money find the Criminals

July 2001! - U.S. plans to invade Afghanistan for an attack on Osama bin Laden and the Taliban by October 2001.

Sep 4, 2001 - The White House approves plans to invade Afghanistan.

Sep 5, 2001 - U.S. pulls the plug on Muslim websites.

Sep10, 2001 - The White House's battle plan to invade Afghanistan and topple the Taliban and Osama bin Laden awaits President Bush's approval.

Kissinger & Carlyle Group Connections to yet more financial interests:

Rumsfeld Trillions:
1. September 10, 2001 - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announces that the Pentagon has lost track of $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of military spending. If these links have been'll have to search.

Scrubbed links? (DOD) (Live footage of the speech)

Insider Trading ("Buzzy" Krongard) CIA

1. September 6, 2001 - Large number of "put" options are placed on United Airlines stock betting that the stock price would fall.
b) (Chicago Tribune)

2. September 6, 2001 - Some of the put options placed on United Airlines stock were purchased through the investment banking firm of Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown in which the current Executive Director of the CIA, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard, used to be the company's CEO up until 1998. ( took this down in 2005, Why?)
3. January 9, 2005 - Let bin Laden stay free, says ex-No. 3 CIA man A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard.
4. All the proof you need. (Insider Trading)

Ex. CIA-director, former President, and President Bush's Dad, George H.W. Bush, meets with one of Osama Bin Laden's brothers at a Carlyle business conference in Washington D.C.

9/11 - Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) and Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL) -- the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees -- along with Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) and some other members of the House Intelligence Committee are in a meeting at the Capital building with the director of Pakistani intelligence (ISI), Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmad, who authorized a $100,000 wire transfer to alleged lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohamed Atta.

Any Broken Links use: 
Plus this link:

Major Federal Reserve motivations for 9/11:
Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping Dollar for Euro:

U.N. to let Iraq sell oil for euros:

Cheney, Energy, and Iraq Invasion (Supreme Court):

"Petrodollar Warfare" - William Clark
"The Case Against the Fed" - Murray Rothbard
"The best way to rob a bank is to own one" - William Black
"Syndrome of Control" - Lindsay Williams
"The Creature from Jekyll Island" - G. Edward Griffin
"Tragedy and Hope" - Carol Quigley
"Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of American Empire at the end of the Age of Oil" - Michael C. Ruppert
"The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power" - Daniel Yergin

9/11 Suspects - Explosive Connections

Most of the material for this video was adapted from Kevin Ryan's landmark article on who had "Demolition access to the WTC Towers":




Clean Up:

For blueprints of the WTCs with a list of all the suspicious tenants and connections check out:

Links and sources for things mentioned in the video:

Kevin R. Ryan, et al, Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials, The Environmentalist, Volume 29, Number 1 / March, 2009,

Niels H. Harrit, et al, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol 2, 2009, doi:

Kevin R. Ryan, The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nanothermites, Journal of 9/11 Studies, July 2008,

Website for In-Q-Tel,

Wikipedia page for Jerome Hauer,

Peter Jennings interview with Jerome Hauer, ABC, on 9/11, 14:53, available on You Tube,

Akzo's International Paint is the maker of Interchar

Taku Murakami, US Patent 5532449 - Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete,

Steven E. Jones et al, Extremely High Temperatures During the World Trade Center Destruction, Journal of 9/11 Studies, January 2008

Albert Gibson et al, Integral low-energy thermite igniter, US Patent number: 4464989,

Skull and Bones is a secret society at Yale University, founded in 1832. Members have included George H.W. Bush, his father Prescott Bush, his son George W. Bush, his brother Jonathan J. Bush, and many other powerful people. For LMI's mission, see its website -

Michael C. Ruppert, Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA's Highest Ranks, October 9, 2001,

Kevin R. Ryan, Mahmud Ahmed's itinerary from his Washington DC visit the week of 9/11,, 11/27/2009,

The agreement between LLNL and Savannah River can be found here -

Savannah's reference to developing sol-gels can be found here -

SEC document for Washington pre-payments -

The Ties That Bind, Descended from family business empires, six huge business groups dominate the Japanese economy, Multinational Monitor, October 1983 -

Securacomm Consulting Inc. v. Securacom Incorporated, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, January 20, 1999, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1444; 166 F.3d 182,

Wikipedia page for Stratesec,

SEC filing for Stratesec, May 2, 1997,

Kroll Inc website,

Wikipedia page for the Quill and Dagger Society,

The History Commons, "Wolfowitz Doctrine", 

Aaron Dykes, Wolfowitz Warns of 'Surprise like Pearl Harbor' Months Before 9/11 Attacks, Jones Report, February 9, 2007 

Wolfowitz's meeting with Mahmud Ahmed was documented in a FOIA response obtained by the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington -

Plaintiffs'' Opposition to Defendant Terrence R. McAuliffe's Motion to Dismiss, Case No: 1:98CV02859 (RCL), W.L. Meng et al vs. Bernard L. Schwartz and Loral Space et al, US District Court for the District of Columbia,

"Official" 9/11 propaganda embraced by truthers who say that a plane hit the Pentagon

You know it supports the official story when you can buy it in the 9/11 Memorial Store.

And yet, Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon, is also embraced by some in the Truth movement. The question is why?

You don’t have to look far to find out. This piece of shameless propaganda has an official endorsement because it supports the minority view within the movement that Flight 77 actually hit the Pentagon.

Anybody see a stray wing lying around? Firefight says it’s around somewhere.

These truthers don’t seem to have a problem that the book also tells us that one of the wings broke apart outside the building, landing on the grass. And the plane hit the building with a mass that resembled a shaped charge ploughing through the structure “like an energy beam,” leading to the creation of the “punch-out” hole in the Pentagon’s middle C ring.

In a video, 9/11 Truth activist Jon Gold chastises those who believe a plane didn’t hit:

“This [book] talks about witnesses who saw [airplane] chairs with bodies strapped to them inside the Pentagon. And yet people think that they want to promote the idea that Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon as… one of the most important issues of the 9/11 truth cause, and that’s bull.”

We also learn that the left wing of the plane dipped down to ground level and the left engine grazed the grass and hit a steam vault protruding from the ground, all while the right engine was low enough to plow through the construction fence. It also tells us that debris from the impact flew backwards across Washington Blvd as well as forward as far as the Pentagon’s interior courtyard.

Do we take from this that Gold thinks that large chunks of the wing really landed on the grass? Or does he recommend only the points that suit his claim that the plane hit? And how credible is the claim about bodies strapped to seats?

How credible, for that matter is Firefight as a whole? Let’s examine some of the book’s claims. We’ll get to the airplane seats in a minute, but let’s begin with a new whopper proffered near the beginning of the book, one I’ve never seen in any other official-story-supporting publication. This claim deals with what happened in the final millisecond before the plane allegedly slammed into the wall:

As Flight 77 flew nearly to ground level, its right wing sliced into a 750-kilowatt generator in one of the construction areas. The generator erupted into a fireball. The plane’s right engine ripped a hole in a fence near the generator and yanked out some of the surrounding fence posts. The left wingtip dipped almost to ground level, while the left engine grazed the grass and struck a steam vault protruding from the ground. Both wings began to break apart, hurling metal fragments into the air. (p. 25)

Multiple problems here. First, in this photo, do you see wing parts on the grass? Second, do you see any “grazed grass?” These are rhetorical questions, of course, because the obvious answers are No and No. Third, look how “high” (i.e. low) that fence is. How is it possible that the left wing could “dip” to “almost ground level” so that the left engine grazes the grass, while at the same time, the right engine could rip a hole in the fence? At the very least, this is an “either-or” scenario, but certainly not both. In reality, of course, the correct answer is “neither,” since the photographic evidence clearly refutes both of these claims. And on the next page, we read:

At least one third of the left wing had snapped off when the left engine hit the steam vault. (p. 26)

Once again, this claim is totally unsupported by photographic evidence. Where is this wing on the grass?

Now let’s tackle the issue of alleged bodies still in airliner seats with the seat belts still fastened. From pp. 373-4:

For the first time, Regan’s team saw something they had expected to see all along but had been scarce until then: recognizable airplane parts. They all thought they would find big pieces of the airliner laying everywhere, the way car parts end up strewn across a highway after a crash. But the physics of an airplane crash were obviously different: Mostly there was just tons of shredded metal and melted plastic.

Finally, they found several airplane seats, piled among the usual mounds of upturned office furniture and random wreckage. A couple of the seats still had bodies belted into them, which had already been found and marked for the FBI… They were the first objects the non-aviation experts had seen that unmistakably belonged to an airplane.

An NTSB official was nearby, and Regan asked him… “I don’t understand why we’re not seeing more airplane parts,” he declared.

The NTSB “expert’s” answer:

“Imagine if you took a banana and pushed it through a grinder. Everything goes through the part that’s in front of it. That’s what happened here. The only reason those seats survived is because they were from the rear or the plane.”

Remember, this book was written in 2008, well into the truth movement’s life. It appears that this account serves to not only corroborate the official version, but specifically, Ted Olson’s claim that his wife had told him via cellphone/airfone/cellphone/airfone(he changed his story 3 times) that the passengers had been herded to the back of the plane. If they’d been herded to the back of the plane, they wouldn’t be in their seats, would they? Perhaps except for the passengers who were already seated in the back and hence had no need to get out of their seats.

But wait a minute. Look at this seating chart, used in the Moussaoui trial, courtesy of the website of Jim Hoffman (someone who supports the official crash view). There were no passengers originally seated in the very back of the plane. Is it really believable that a few of the passengers, once herded to the back of the plane, then sat down in the back row and fastened their seat belts?

The book’s absurdities don’t stop here. As with other aspects of 9/11, purveyors of the official story can’t keep their lies straight. Just as we’ve had multiple (unconvincing) explanations for what caused the demise of WTC7, Firefight offers the world a thirdexplanation for what caused the exit hole in the Pentagon’s C Ring.

The first explanation, from both Rumsfeld and Pentagon renovation manager Lee Evey, was that the nose of the plane caused this hole:

“This area right here is what we call A-E Drive. And unlike other rings in the building, it’s actually a driveway that circles the building inside, between the B and the C ring. The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. So that’s the extent of penetration of the aircraft.”

However, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Building Performance Report itself refuted this, saying “The front of the aircraft disintegrated essentially upon impact.” The second explanation, circa 2005, from Popular Mechanics, refers back to the ASCE, captioning a photo with the words “Hole Truth: Flight 77′s landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon’s Ring C.”(It appears we have to pay $43 to see the original source.)

Perhaps official story disseminates grew uncomfortable with this explanation, too. After all, how could the landing gear punch such a neatly shaped, circular hole into the wall of the C-Ring? So, the 2008 book Firefight proffers a third explanation. On pp. 29-30, it says:

As the mass traveled through the building, it began to resemble a shaped charge, a form of explosive that funnels its force into a small, directed area — like a beam of energy — in order to punch holes through armor or other strong material.

And in a photo caption in the pictures section mid-book, we read:

“The hole was created by explosive energy; the plane’s soft aluminum nose and fuselage crumpled the instant it struck the building.”

So, official sources have now listed the nose, the landing gear, and explosive beam-like energy as the causes of the exit hole. Kind of like how diesel fuel fires, no wait, structural damage, brought down WTC7.

Speaking of official lies not jiving with one another, most readers at Truth and Shadows are familiar with the story of cab driver Lloyde England, who, according to the official story (and his own account) was a victim of the Pentagon attack in that a light pole toppled by the plane fell onto his cab, spearing the windshield but strangely not damaging the hood. (This is pseudo-physics on a par with the JFK magic bullet.) According to Lloyde, he got out of the car and, with the help of a “silent stranger,” lifted the pole from the windshield and placed it onto the road. (See CIT’s presentation “The First Known Accomplice?” for more.) Mr. England’s story is highly implausible, and besides, numerous genuine witnesses place the location of the plane to be far away from the light pole that allegedly hit his cab.

But Firefight gives us another account (bolding mine):

As it crossed the expressway, the plane’s wings knocked over several light poles that lined the road, like a ten-year-old toppling Tinkertoys with a slash of his hand. One light pole fell onto a taxicab, smashing the windshield, injuring the driver, and bringing the sedan to a skidding halt. (p. 24)

This is news to me; I had no idea Lloyde England was injured. If he was, it was quite a feat to get out of that car and move the pole, even with the help of another person. Once again, proponents of the official account can’t seem to keep their lies straight.

Yet another whopper is when the book claims that not only did the plane disintegrate with much debris flying backwards (some allegedly landing on the other side of the highway immediately west of the building), but that other plane debris hurled forwards and came to rest in the center courtyard.

When the airplane had burst on impact, the blast threw many pieces backward onto the lawn by the helipad, some with such force that they landed on the other side of Washington Boulevard, nearly 1,000 feet away. But thousands of pieces also carried forward and up, even over the roof of the building. In the Pentagon’s inner courtyard, tiny pieces of aluminum drifted down like confetti. Other pieces landed on the roof, along with body parts from at least one of the victims. (p. 29)

I challenge anyone to find aerial pictures showing “thousands” of pieces of airplane debris in the courtyard or on the roof.

Here is another glaring error in Firefight, from page 13:

Word was spreading throughout the FAA that AA77 had probably been hijacked. Still there were hundreds of planes in the sky along the East Coast. Without the transponder data, searching for a single runaway jet among all those radar dots was like looking at mites under a microscope.

This mirrors the Popular Mechanics talking point about the transponders being turned off. However, David Griffin addressed this soundly in Debunking 9/11 Debunking: The four planes that had been hijacked would NOT have looked identical to the other blips, because only the hijacked jets would have been void of transponder data (a 4-digit code number and the plane’s altitude). So they would have stuck out like a sore thumb. Finally, as Griffin asks rhetorically, “Was the US military’s defense of the homeland during the Cold War based on the assumption that Soviet pilots would have the courtesy to leave their transponders on?”

At this stage, it should be clear that the book’s credibility is in serious doubt. That being said, most of the 450+ pages of this book probably contain more truth than lies, but as we know, the best disinformation is 95% truth and 5% poison. Most of the book deals with the efforts to fight the fire during the course of the several days following 9/11: the collaboration and communication between various engine ladders of the Arlington fire department, the collaboration between the Arlington FD and the Fairfax FD. A book this thick could be written about ANY large fire, and the efforts to extinguish it, and most of the details of this book are immemorial with regards to 9/11 truth seeking. Three times throughout, the firefighters are radioed that another unidentified aircraft is heading their way, and that they need to evacuate in case a second plane hits the Pentagon.

Of course, in all three instances, they eventually get the “all clear, it was a friendly plane” and the firefighters continue their job of hosing the fires. A significant portion of the firefight involves the stubbornly smoldering roof and the difficulties in putting that part of the fire out. Many passages in the book are of emotional nature, i.e. firefighters using donated cell phones from the Cingular phone company to call their loved ones and tell them they’re OK.

Also, while this book is clearly meant to bolster the official story, there are “nuggets of truth” (to borrow a phrase from T/S contributor Senior El Once) throughout. For example, even though official story apologists get their nug on page 373 (evening of 9/12) about bodies strapped into airplane seats, there are many passages prior to that which point to the real scenario.

They found the same perplexing thing as Spector — lots of demolished offices, but no victims. Smith was shocked. God damn it, he thought, where is everybody? They lifted debris and looked underneath. Nothing. (p. 74)

They encountered the first office on the left and went inside to do a quick search, shining hand lights through the smoke, lifting rubble to see if they could find any victims, and breaking through walls with axes and other tools they carried. There was nobody. (p. 82)

Gibbs suited up for his own look into the building, joining up with a Fort Myer unit that was about to enter through a doorway to the left of the impact hole. They crawled toward the crash site looking for victims, just as Spector and Smith had… After stumbling around for a few minutes and finding nobody, Gibbs decided they needed another plan. (p. 86)

Firefight was jointly written by Patrick Creed, an “amateur historian and volunteer firefighter,” (according to the back inside sleeve) and Rick Newman, a “staff writer for U.S. News and World Report.” It was published in 2008. While this book is not an “official” source in the sense of being an official release by a government agency, it is at least a “semi-official” report in the sense of the Popular Mechanics anti-9/11truth article and book, which incidentally has been cited by government officials as the last word against the 9/11 “conspiracy theorists.” As Gold’s video shows, Firefight is sold at the 9/11 Memorial Store, as is the 9/11 Commission Report. As Gold says, “[The store] can sell the 9/11 Commission Report, but they can’t sell anything to do with the women responsible for the creation of it.” Jon is, of course, referring to the documentary 9/11 Press for Truth, which documents the journey of the Jersey Girls (9/11 widows) and their fight to get the original Commission created in the first place, when the Bush administration was staunchly opposed to any commission at all. The fact that Firefight is being sold at such a store is testament to its endorsement by the establishment.

Within the 9/11 truth movement, this book has been promoted by 911blogger moderator Erik “loose nuke” Larson. He says: “Firefighters at the Pentagon, public records, 150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses… anyone reading this?” And on that same entry, Gold says: “Does anyone have any indication that those who wrote this book are lying, have a history of lying, etc? If not, then why is this ignored by the “Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon” advocates? Edit: Still ignoring this, eh?” And so-called truther jimd3100 states that truthers won’t read the book because it contradicts their pet theory (that an airliner didn’t hit).

Well, now I can say I’ve read the whole book, and the proof is in the pudding. Firefight is a piece of sloppy propaganda. Shame on any so-called 9/11 truth activist who would recommend this “work” over the REAL work carried out by Enver Masud, Citizen Investigation Team, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth.


CBS - Senator cut off in the middle of 9/11 prior knowledge discussion

Watch what happened during an interview on the 1st anniversary of 9/11.

As a Congressman is being asked about "The Phoenix Memo" and "Zacarious Moussauoi", he is abutly cut off.

Google those two things and I think you'll understand why he was cut off with no explanation.

Keith Olbermann on 9/11 Truth

Of course Olberman knows about 9/11 but, like the others in the "news biz", he cannot say anything.

But for someone this close to the mainstream media, he still manages to give a pretty good answer:

Sep 5, 2012, "We Are Change"

Danish Scientist Dr. Niels Harrit's Extremely Hostile Interview with the BBC

May 2011 BBC Interview with distinguished Danish Scientist Dr. Niels Harrit, in which BBC producer Michael Rudin tries to dismiss hard evidence and maintain off-the-wall lies over the 911 attacks.

Michael Rudin: Cognitive Dissonance? Willful Ignorance? Or was he paid to behave this way?

"9/11: THE SENSIBLE DOUBT" - Danish documentary about 9/11

Evidently the Danes "get it" - but the Americans don't - yet.

Right now it is being shown on local TV in Copenhagen. It was released last year in September to mark the 10 years since 9/11 - now with English subtitles.

“The most difficult subjects can be explained
to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed
any idea of them already;
but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the
most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded
that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt,
what is laid before him.”

- Leo Tolstoy

Blather. Rinse. Repeat. Here is a Fine Example of Our Controlled Media

If you ever had any doubt that the media was controlled...and still is with the official lies about 9/11 and those "wacky truthers."

I could not have invented a better example of the Media Echo Chamber:

Terror Trading 9/11

"Terror Trading 9/11" by Lars Schall and Michael Leitner is a video dedicated to the topic of the alleged informed trading activities prior to the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001.

For further information read "Insider Trading 9/11...The Facts Laid Bare" at ASIA TIMES ONLINE under:

Lars Schall has written a book on this subject (in german): Assassination 9/11: A criminalistic research on finance, oil and drugs.

Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11

by Kevin Ryan
November 18, 2010

Just after September 11th 2001, many governments began investigations into possible insider trading related to the terrorist attacks of that day. Such investigations were initiated by the governments of Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Monte Carlo, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United States, and others. Although the investigators were clearly concerned about insider trading, and considerable evidence did exist, none of the investigations resulted in a single indictment. That’s because the people identified as having been involved in the suspicious trades were seen as unlikely to have been associated with those alleged to have committed the 9/11 crimes.

This is an example of the circular logic often used by those who created the official explanations for 9/11. The reasoning goes like this: if we assume that we know who the perpetrators were (i.e. the popular version of “al Qaeda”) and those who were involved in the trades did not appear to be connected to those assumed perpetrators, then insider trading did not occur.

That’s basically what the 9/11 Commission told us. The Commission concluded that “exhaustive investigations” by the SEC and the FBI “uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions.” What they meant was that someone did profit through securities transactions but, based on the Commission’s assumptions of guilt, those who profited were not associated with those who were guilty of conducting the attacks. In a footnote, the Commission report acknowledged “highly suspicious trading on its face,” but said that this trading on United Airlines was traced back to “A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda.”[1]

With respect to insider trading, or what is more technically called informed trading, the Commission report was itself suspect for several reasons. First, the informed trades relating to 9/11 covered far more than just airline company stock. The stocks of financial and reinsurance companies, as well as other financial vehicles, were identified as being associated with suspicious trades. Huge credit card transactions, completed just before the attacks, were also involved. The Commission ultimately tried to frame all of this highly suspicious trading in terms of a series of misunderstandings. However, the possibility that so many leading financial experts were so completely wrong is doubtful at best and, if true, would constitute another unbelievable scenario in the already highly improbable sequence of events represented by the official story of 9/11.

In the last few years, new evidence has come to light on these matters. In 2006 and 2010, financial experts at a number of universities have established new evidence, through statistical analyses, that informed trades did occur with respect to the 9/11 attacks. Additionally, in 2007, the 911 Commission released a memorandum summary of the FBI investigations on which its report was based.[2] A careful review of this memorandum indicates that some of the people who were briefly investigated by the FBI, and then acquitted without due diligence, had links to al Qaeda and to US intelligence agencies. Although the elapsed time between the informed trades and these new confirmations might prevent legal action against the guilty, the facts of the matter can help lead us to the truth about 9/11.

Early signs

Within a week of the attacks, Germany’s stock market regulator, BAWe, began looking into claims of suspicious trading.[3] That same week, Italy’s foreign minister, Antonio Martino, made it clear that he had concerns by issuing this public statement: “I think that there are terrorist states and organisations behind speculation on the international markets.”[4]

Within two weeks of the attacks, CNN reported that regulators were seeing “ever-clearer signs” that someone “manipulated financial markets ahead of the terror attack in the hope of profiting from it.” Belgian Finance Minister, Didier Reynders, said that there were strong suspicions that British markets were used for transactions.[5] The CIA was reported to have asked the British regulators to investigate some of the trades.[6] Unfortunately, the British regulator, The Financial Services Authority, wrote off its investigation by simply clearing “bin Laden and his henchmen of insider trading.”[7]

Conversely, German central bank president, Ernst Welteke, said his bank conducted a study that strongly indicated “terrorism insider trading” associated with 9/11. He stated that his researchers had found “almost irrefutable proof of insider trading.”[8] Welteke suggested that the insider trading occurred not only in shares of companies affected by the attacks, such as airlines and insurance companies, but also in gold and oil. [9]

The extent of the 9/11-related informed trading was unprecedented. An ABC News Consultant, Jonathan Winer, said, “it’s absolutely unprecedented to see cases of insider trading covering the entire world from Japan to the US to North America to Europe.”[10]

By October 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) and the four other options exchanges in the US had joined forces with the FBI and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to investigate a list of 38 stocks, as well as multiple options and Treasury bonds, that were flagged in relation to potential informed trades. SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt gave testimony to the House Financial Services Committee at the time, saying, “We will do everything in our power to track those people down and bring them to justice.”[11]

Mary Bender, chief regulatory officer at the CBOE, stated “We’ve never really had anything like this, [the option exchanges are] using the same investigative tools as we would in an insider-trading case. The point is to find people who are connected to these heinous crimes.”

The people ultimately found included an unnamed customer of Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown (DBAB). This involved a trade on United Airlines (UAL) stock consisting of a 2,500-contract order that was, for some reason, split into chunks of 500 contracts each and then directed to multiple exchanges around the country simultaneously.[12] When the 9/11 Commission report pointed to a “single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda,” it was referring to either DBAB or its customer in that questionable trade.

Michael Ruppert has since written about DBAB, noting that the company had previously been a financier of The Carlyle Group and also of Brown Brothers Harriman, both of which are companies closely related to the Bush family. Ruppert also noted that Alex. Brown, the company purchased by Deutsche Bank to become DBAB, was managed by A.B. (Buzzy) Krongard, who left the firm in 1998 to join the CIA as counsel to director George Tenet.[13] Krongard had been a consultant to CIA director James Woolsey in the mid 1990s and, on September 11th, he was the Executive Director of the CIA, the third highest position in the agency.

Stock and Treasury bonds traded

In 2002, investigator Kyle Hence wrote about the stocks involved in the SEC’s target list. Those that had the highest examples of trade volume over the average were UAL [285 times over average], Marsh & McLennan (Marsh) [93 times over average], American Airlines (AMR) [60 times over average], and Citigroup [45 times over average].[14] Other stocks flagged included financial firms, defense-related companies, and the reinsurance firms Munich Re, Swiss Re and the AXA Group. Put options for these reinsurance firms, or bets that the stock would drop, were placed at double the normal levels in the few days before the attacks. Regulators were concerned about “large block trades” on these stocks because the three firms were liable for billions in insurance payouts due to the damage inflicted on 9/11.[15]

The four highest-volume suspect stocks — UAL, Marsh, AMR and Citigroup — were closely linked to the attacks of 9/11. The two airline companies each had two planes hijacked and destroyed. Marsh was located in the exact 8 floors out of 110 in the north tower of the WTC where Flight 11 impacted and the fires occurred. Citigroup was the parent of Travelers Insurance, which was expected to see $500 million in claims, and also Salomon Smith Barney, which occupied all but ten floors in World Trade Center (WTC) building 7. Oddly enough, Salomon Smith Barney had both Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney on its advisory board until January 2001.

Marsh occupied a number of floors in the south tower as well. This is where the office of Marsh executive, L. Paul Bremer, was located. Bremer was a former managing director at Kissinger Associates and had just completed leading a national terrorism commission in 2000. The San Francisco Chronicle noted that Bremer was a source of early claims that rich Arabs were financing Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network. In an article on the 9/11 informed trades, the Chronicle reported that “The former chairman of the State Department’s National Commission on Terrorism, L. Paul Bremer, said he obtained classified government analyses early last year of bin Laden’s finances confirming the assistance of affluent Middle Easterners.”[16]

On the day of 9/11, Bremer was interviewed by NBC News and stated that he believed Osama bin Laden was responsible and that possibly Iraq and Iran were involved too, and he called for the most severe military response possible. For unknown reasons, Google removed the interview video from its servers three times, and blocked it once.[17]

The trading of Treasury bonds just before 9/11 was also flagged as being suspicious. Reporters from The Wall street Journal wrote that the “U.S. Secret Service contacted a number of bond traders regarding large purchases of five-year Treasury notes before the attacks, according to people familiar with the probe. The investigators, acting on a tip from traders, are examining whether terrorists, or people affiliated with terrorist organizations, bought five-year notes, including a single $5 billion trade.”[18]

Some reports claimed that the 9/11 informed trades were such that millions of dollars were made, and some of that went unclaimed. [19] Others suggested that the trades resulted in the winning of billions of dollars in profits. One such suggestion was made by the former German Minister of Technology, Andreas von Buelow, who said that the value of the informed trades was on the order of $15 billion.[20]

The FBI Investigations

In May 2007, a 9/11 Commission document that summarized the FBI investigations into potential 9/11-related informed trading was declassified. [21] This document was redacted to remove the names of two FBI agents from the New York office, and to remove the names of select suspects in the informed trading investigations. The names of other FBI agents and suspects were left in. Regardless, some information can be gleaned from the document to help reveal the trades and traders investigated.

On September 21, 2001, the SEC referred two specific transactions to the FBI for criminal investigation as potential informed trades. One of those trades was a September 6, 2001 purchase of 56,000 shares of a company called Stratesec, which in the few years before 9/11 was a security contractor for several of the facilities that were compromised on 9/11. These facilities included the WTC buildings, Dulles airport, where American Airlines Flight 77 took off, and also United Airlines, which owned two of the other three ill-fated planes.

The affected 56,000 shares of Stratesec stock were purchased by a director of the company, Wirt D. Walker III, and his wife Sally Walker. This is clear from the memorandum generated to record the FBI summary of the trades investigated.[22] The Stratesec stock that the Walkers purchased doubled in value in the one trading day between September 11th and when the stock market reopened on September 17th. The Commission memorandum suggests that the trade generated a profit of $50,000 for the Walkers. Unfortunately, the FBI did not interview either of the Walkers and they were both cleared of any wrongdoing because they were said to have “no ties to terrorism or other negative information.” [23]

However, Wirt Walker was connected to people who had connections to al Qaeda. For example, Stratesec director James Abrahamson was the business partner of Mansoor Ijaz, who claimed on several occasions to be able to contact Osama bin Laden.[24] Additionally, Walker hired a number of Stratesec employees away from a subsidiary of The Carlyle Group called BDM International, which ran secret (black) projects for government agencies. The Carlyle Group was partly financed by members of the bin Laden family.[25] Mr. Walker ran a number of suspicious companies that went bankrupt, including Stratesec, some of which were underwritten by a company run by a first cousin of former CIA director (and President) George H.W. Bush. Additionally, Walker was the child of a CIA employee and his first job was at an investment firm run by former US intelligence guru, James “Russ” Forgan, where he worked with another former CIA director, William Casey.[26] Of course, Osama bin Laden had links to the CIA as well.[27]

Another trade investigated by the FBI, on request from the SEC, focused on Amir Ibrahim Elgindy, an Egyptian-born, San Diego stock advisor who on the day before 9/11 had allegedly attempted to liquidate $300,000 in assets through his broker at Salomon Smith Barney. During the attempted liquidation, Elgindy was said to have “predicted that the Dow Jones industrial average, which at the time stood at about 9,600, would soon crash to below 3,000.”[28]

The 9/11 Commission memorandum suggests that the FBI never interviewed Mr. Elgindy either, and had planned to exonerate him because there was “no evidence he was seeking to establish a position whereby he would profit from the terrorist attacks.” Apparently, the prediction of a precipitous drop in the stock market, centered on the events of 9/11, was not sufficient cause for the FBI to interview the suspect.

In late May 2002, Elgindy was arrested along with four others, including an FBI agent and a former FBI agent, and charged with conspiracy to manipulate stock prices and extort money from companies. The FBI agents, Jeffrey A Royer and Lynn Wingate, were said to have “used their access to F.B.I. databases to monitor the progress of the criminal investigation against Mr. Elgindy.”[29] A federal prosecutor later accused Elgindy, who also went by several aliases, of having prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Although the judge in that case did not agree with the prosecutor on the 9/11 informed trading accusation, Mr. Elgindy was eventually convicted, in 2005, of multiple crimes including racketeering, securities fraud, and making false statements.

The Boston office of the FBI investigated stock trades related to two companies. The first was Viisage Technologies, a facial recognition company that stood to benefit from an increase in terrorism legislation. The Viisage purchase, made by a former employee of the Saudi American Bank, “revealed no connection with 9/11.” However, the Saudi American Bank was named in a lawsuit brought by the 9/11 victims’ families due to the bank having — “financed development projects in Sudan benefiting bin Laden in the early 1990s.”[30]

The second company investigated by the Boston FBI office was Wellington Management, a company that allegedly held a large account for Osama bin Laden. The FBI found that Wellington Management maintained an account for “members of the bin Laden family” but dropped the investigation because it could not link this to “Osama, al Qaeda, or terrorism.”[31]

Although the connections to al Qaeda in three of these cases (Walker, the Viisage trader, and Wellington Management) can be seen as circumstantial, the amount of such evidence is considerable. The quality of the FBI investigations, considering the suspects were not even interviewed, was therefore much less than “exhaustive”, as the 9/11 Commission characterized it.

The summary of FBI investigations released by the 9/11 Commission also described how the Commission questioned the FBI about damaged computer hard drives that might have been recovered from the WTC. This questioning was the result of “press reports [contending] that large volumes of suspicious transactions flowed through the computers housed in the WTC on the morning of 9/11 as part of some illicit but ill-defined effort to profit from the attacks.”[32] The Commission came to the conclusion that no such activity occurred because “the assembled agents expressed no knowledge of the reported hard-drive recovery effort” and “everything at the WTC was pulverized to near powder, making it extremely unlikely that any hard-drives survived.”

The truth, however, is that many such hard-drives were recovered from the WTC and were sent to specialist companies to be cleaned and have data recovered. A German company named Convar did a good deal of the recovery work.

In December 2001, Reuters reported that “Convar has recovered information from 32 computers that support assumptions of dirty doomsday dealings.” Richard Wagner, a data retrieval expert at Convar, testified that “There is a suspicion that some people had advance knowledge of the approximate time of the plane crashes in order to move out amounts exceeding $100 million. They thought that the records of their transactions could not be traced after the main frames were destroyed.” Director of Convar, Peter Henschel, said that it was “not only the volume, but the size of the transactions [that] was far higher than usual for a day like that.”[33]

By late December 2001, Convar had completed processing 39 out of 81 drives, and expected to receive 20 more WTC hard drives the next month. Obviously, the 911 Commission memorandum drafted in August 2003 was not particularly reliable considering it reported that the FBI and the 911 Commission had no knowledge of any of this.

Statistical confirmations

Considering that the FBI and 9/11 Commission overlooked the suspicious connections of informed trading suspects like Wirt Walker, and also claimed in 2003 to have no knowledge of hard drive recoveries publicly reported in 2001, we must assume that they did a poor job of investigating. Today, however, we know that several peer-reviewed academic papers have reported solid evidence that informed trades did occur. That is, the conclusions reached by the official investigations have now been shown, through scientific analysis, to be quite wrong.

In 2006, a professor of Finance from the University of Illinois named Allen Poteshman published an analysis of the airline stock option trades preceding the attacks. This study came to the conclusion that an indicator of long put volume was “unusually high which is consistent with informed investors having traded in the option market in advance of the attacks.”[34] Long puts are bets that a stock or option will fall in price.

The unusually high volume of long puts, purchased on UAL and AMR stock before these stocks declined dramatically due to the 9/11 attacks, are evidence that the traders knew that the stocks would decline. Using statistical techniques to evaluate conditional and unconditional distributions of historical stock option activity, Professor Poteshman showed that the data indicate that informed trading did occur.

In January 2010, a team of financial experts from Switzerland published evidence for at least thirteen informed trades in which the investors appeared to have had foreknowledge of the attacks. This study focused again on a limited number of companies but, of those, the informed trades centered on five airline companies and four financial companies. The airline companies were American Airlines, United Airlines and Boeing. Three of the financial companies involved were located in the WTC towers and the fourth was Citigroup, which stood to lose doubly as the parent of both Travelers Insurance and the WTC 7 tenant, Salomon Smith Barney.[35]

More recently, in April 2010, an international team of experts examined trading activities of options on the Standard & Poors 500 index, as well as a volatility index of the CBOE called VIX. These researchers showed that there was a significant abnormal increase in trading volume in the option market just before the 9/11 attacks, and they demonstrated that this was in contrast to the absence of abnormal trading volume over periods long before the attacks. The study also showed that the relevant abnormal increase in trading volume was not simply due to a declining market.[36] Their findings were “consistent with insiders anticipating the 9-11 attacks.”


In the early days just after 9/11, financial regulators around the world gave testimony to unprecedented evidence for informed trading related to the terrorist attacks of that day. One central bank president (Welteke) said there was irrefutable proof of such trading. This evidence led US regulators to vow, in Congressional testimony, to bring those responsible to justice. Those vows were not fulfilled, as the people in charge of the investigations let the suspects off the hook by conducting weak inquiries and concluding that informed trading could not have occurred if it was not done directly by Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda.

The “exhaustive investigations” conducted by the FBI, on which the 9/11 Commission report was based, were clearly bogus. The FBI did not interview the suspects and did not appear to compare notes with the 9/11 Commission to help make a determination if any of the people being investigated might have had ties to al Qaeda. The Commission’s memorandum summary suggests that the FBI simply made decisions on its own regarding the possible connections of the suspects and the alleged terrorist organizations. Those unilateral decisions were not appropriate, as at least three of the suspected informed trades (those of Walker, the Viisage trader, and Wellington Management) involved reasonably suspicious links to Osama bin Laden or his family. Another suspect (Elgindy) was a soon-to-be convicted criminal who had direct links to FBI employees who were later arrested for securities-related crimes.

The FBI also claimed in August 2003 that it had no knowledge of hard drives recovered from the WTC, which were publicly reported in 2001. According to the people who retrieved the associated data, the hard drives gave evidence for “dirty doomsday dealings.”

The evidence for informed trading on 9/11 includes many financial vehicles, from stock options to Treasury bonds to credit card transactions made at the WTC just before it was destroyed. Today we know that financial experts from around the world have provided strong evidence, through established and reliable statistical techniques, that the early expert suspicions were correct, and that 9/11 informed trading did occur.

People knew in advance about the crimes of 9/11, and they profited from that knowledge. Those people are among us today, and our families and communities are at risk of future terrorist attacks and further criminal profiteering if we do not respond to the evidence. It is time for an independent, international investigation into the informed trades and the traders who benefited from the terrorist acts of September 11th.


[1] National Commission on the Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, July 2004, p 172, and Chapter 5, footnote 130,

[2] 9/11 Commission memorandum entitled “FBI Briefing on Trading”, prepared by Doug Greenburg, 18 August 2003,

[3] Dave Carpenter, Exchange examines odd jump: Before attack: Many put options of hijacked planes’ parent companies purchased , The Associated Press, 18 September 2001,

[4] BBC News, Bin Laden ‘share gains’ probe, 18 September 2001,

[5] Tom Bogdanowicz and Brooks Jackson, Probes into ‘suspicious’ trading, CNN, 24 September 2001,

[6] James Doran, Insider Trading Apparently Based on Foreknowledge of 9/11 Attacks, The London Times, 18 September 2001,

[7] David Brancaccio, Marketplace Public Radio: News Archives, 17 October 2001,

[8] Paul Thompson and The Center for Cooperative Research, Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute: A Comprehensive Chronicle of the Road to 9/11 – and America’s Response, Harper Collins, 2004. Also found at History Commons, Complete 9/11 Timeline, Insider Trading and Other Foreknowledge

[9] Associated Press, EU Searches for Suspicious Trading , 22 September 2001,,2933,34910,00.html

[10] World News Tonight, 20 September 2001

[11] Erin E. Arvedlund, Follow The Money: Terrorist Conspirators Could Have Profited More From Fall Of Entire Market Than Single Stocks, Barron’s (Dow Jones and Company), 6 October 2001

[12] Ibid

[13] Michael C. Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon: the decline of the American empire at the end of the age of oil, New Society Publishers, 2004

[14] Kyle F. Hence, Massive pre-attack ‘insider trading’ offer authorities hottest trail to accomplices, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), 21 April 2002,

[15] Grant Ringshaw, Profits of doom, The London Telegraph, 23 September 2001,

[16] Christian Berthelsen and Scott Winokur, Suspicious profits sit uncollected: Airline investors seem to be lying low, San Francisco Chronicle, 29 September 2001,

[17] Lewis Paul Bremer III on Washington, DC, NBC4 TV, 11 September 2001, Vehmgericht

[18] Charles Gasparino and Gregory Zuckerman, Treasury Bonds Enter Purview of U.S. Inquiry Into Attack Gains, The Wall Street Journal, 2 October 2001,

[19] Christian Berthelsen and Scott Winokur

[20] Tagesspiegel, Former German Cabinet Minister Attacks Official Brainwashing On September 11 Issue Points at “Mad Dog” Zbig and Huntington, 13 January 2002,

[21] 9/11 Commission memorandum

[22] The 9/11 Commission memorandum that summarized the FBI investigations refers to the traders involved in the Stratesec purchase. From the references in the document, we can make out that the two people had the same last name and were related. This fits the description of Wirt and Sally Walker, who are known to be stock holders in Stratesec. Additionally, one (Wirt) was a director at the company, a director at a publicly traded company in Oklahoma (Aviation General), and chairman of an investment firm in Washington, DC (Kuwam Corp).

[23] 9/11 Commission memorandum

[24] Sourcewatch, Mansoor Ijaz/Sudan,

[25] History Commons, Complete 911 Timeline, Bin Laden Family,

[26] Kevin R. Ryan, The History of Wirt Dexter Walker: Russell & Co, the CIA and 9/11,, 3 September 2010,

[27] Michael Moran, Bin Laden comes home to roost : His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story, MSNBC, 24 August 1998,

[28] Alex Berenson, U.S. Suggests, Without Proof, Stock Adviser Knew of 9/11, The New York Times, 25 May 2002,

[29] Alex Berenson, Five, Including F.B.I. Agents, Are Named In a Conspiracy, The New York Times, 23 May 2002

[30] History Commons, Complete 911 Timeline, Saudi American Bank,

[31] 9/11 Commission memorandum

[32] 9/11 Commission memorandum

[33] Erik Kirschbaum, German Firm Probes Final World Trade Center Deals, Reuters, 16 December 2001,

[34] Allen M. Poteshman, Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, The Journal of Business, 2006, vol. 79, no. 4,

[35] Marc Chesney, et al, Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Options Markets, Social Sciences Research Network, 13 January 2010,

[36] Wing-Keung Wong, et al, Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?, Social Sciences Research Network, April 2010,