"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: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NC21Dj05.html
Lars Schall has written a book on this subject (in german): Assassination 9/11: A criminalistic research on finance, oil and drugs. http://www.schildverlag.de/video-dvd/mordanschlag-911
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.”
Conclusion
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.
Notes
[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, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf
[2] 9/11 Commission memorandum entitled “FBI Briefing on Trading”, prepared by Doug Greenburg, 18 August 2003, http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00269.pdf
[3] Dave Carpenter, Exchange examines odd jump: Before attack: Many put options of hijacked planes’ parent companies purchased , The Associated Press, 18 September 2001, http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/cjonline_oddjump.html
[4] BBC News, Bin Laden ‘share gains’ probe, 18 September 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1548118.stm
[5] Tom Bogdanowicz and Brooks Jackson, Probes into ‘suspicious’ trading, CNN, 24 September 2001, http://web.archive.org/web/20011114023845/http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/24/gen.europe.shortselling/
[6] James Doran, Insider Trading Apparently Based on Foreknowledge of 9/11 Attacks, The London Times, 18 September 2001, http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/londontimes_insidertrading.html
[7] David Brancaccio, Marketplace Public Radio: News Archives, 17 October 2001, http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2001/10/17_mpp.html
[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 http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=insidertrading
[9] Associated Press, EU Searches for Suspicious Trading , 22 September 2001, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34910,00.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, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HEN204B.html
[15] Grant Ringshaw, Profits of doom, The London Telegraph, 23 September 2001, http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/telegraph_profitsofdoom.html
[16] Christian Berthelsen and Scott Winokur, Suspicious profits sit uncollected: Airline investors seem to be lying low, San Francisco Chronicle, 29 September 2001, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fchronicle%2Farchive%2F2001%2F09%2F29%2FMN186128.DTL#ixzz14XPGwh6e
[17] Lewis Paul Bremer III on Washington, DC, NBC4 TV, 11 September 2001, Vehmgericht http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/08/lewis-paul-bremer-iii-on-washington-dc.html
[18] Charles Gasparino and Gregory Zuckerman, Treasury Bonds Enter Purview of U.S. Inquiry Into Attack Gains, The Wall Street Journal, 2 October 2001, http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/wallstreetjournal100201.html
[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, http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/VonBuelow.html
[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, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mansoor_Ijaz/Sudan
[25] History Commons, Complete 911 Timeline, Bin Laden Family, http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?financing_of_al-qaeda:_a_more_detailed_look=binladenFamily&timeline=complete_911_timeline
[26] Kevin R. Ryan, The History of Wirt Dexter Walker: Russell & Co, the CIA and 9/11, 911blogger.com, 3 September 2010, http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-03/history-wirt-dexter-walker-russell-company-cia-and-911
[27] Michael Moran, Bin Laden comes home to roost : His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story, MSNBC, 24 August 1998, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101
[28] Alex Berenson, U.S. Suggests, Without Proof, Stock Adviser Knew of 9/11, The New York Times, 25 May 2002, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E4DB143BF936A15756C0A9649C8B63
[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, http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=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, http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/reuters_wtc_drives.html
[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, http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/503645
[35] Marc Chesney, et al, Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Options Markets, Social Sciences Research Network, 13 January 2010, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1522157
[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, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1588523
INTERVIEW: Mysterious Currency Transfers Before 9-11
Bill Bergman worked at the Chicago Federal Reserve for over 13 years as an economist and financial markets policy analyst, until he started asking questions about unusual currency movements before 9-11.
On the show we talk about what happened to him, after he started his investigation.
On the show we talk about what happened to him, after he started his investigation.
WTC Cross Finder Frank Silecchia Calls For 9/11 Truth
WeAreChange.org spoke to First Responder Frank Silecchia who discovered the famous steel cross recovered from Ground Zero.
He supports the 9/11 truth movement.
He supports the 9/11 truth movement.
Is there something fishy about 9/11? Glad you asked....
So you smelled a rat, eh?
Let's go through this and you'll see why you have a right to be suspicious about what really happened on 9/11.
Now see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw
Please watch this first video linked here. It’s only one minute. You’re going to be impressed.
This is a local news video of a witness named Kenny Johannemann testifying to explosions that happened in the basement of one of the WTC towers. While he is testifying you still see both of the twin towers burning behind him in the background. This was live footage and it's only ONE minute long. Go ahead and watch this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEuzU3LMgCA
Those explosions were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling the tower. You didn’t see this on TV. Does that prick your interest?
Now look at this. Barry Jennings was another witness that got stuck in Building Seven during 9/11. Building Seven fell later that same day but was NEVER hit by a jet. Watch his account here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q
Again, the explosions he talked about were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling down this building. Again, you didn't see Barry’s testimony on TV.
Here’s some different evidence. Steve Jones, a nuclear physicist, obtained WTC dust samples from the collapsed WTC towers and analyzed it. He reported his detailed findings here in Boston:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1957490867030316250&ei=JspdSaLNBZa4qAObztThDw&q=steve+jones+boston
Those “red chips” he talked about weren’t the smoking gun they were THE GUN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEuzU3LMgCA
Those explosions were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling the tower. You didn’t see this on TV. Does that prick your interest?
Now look at this. Barry Jennings was another witness that got stuck in Building Seven during 9/11. Building Seven fell later that same day but was NEVER hit by a jet. Watch his account here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q
Again, the explosions he talked about were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling down this building. Again, you didn't see Barry’s testimony on TV.
Here’s some different evidence. Steve Jones, a nuclear physicist, obtained WTC dust samples from the collapsed WTC towers and analyzed it. He reported his detailed findings here in Boston:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1957490867030316250&ei=JspdSaLNBZa4qAObztThDw&q=steve+jones+boston
Those “red chips” he talked about weren’t the smoking gun they were THE GUN.
See the article here:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in_WTC_0404.html
Click here for his actual peer-reviewed paper:
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Now get a load of this:
The BBC reported the collapse of the Solomon Building (WTC Building #7) 20 minutes BEFORE it actually collapsed. Watch that here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlL6ewlW6oc
How did the BBC know in advance that Building Seven would collapse? The fact that it was announced in advance is strong support that the flow of information on this tragedy was being controlled.
Were the people at the BBC the only people privy to this information? Probably not. Larry Silverstein was the leaseholder of Building #7. In a 2002 PBS documentary he talked about how he discussed the Building Seven situation with the fire department and how the decision was made by that department to "pull" it.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in_WTC_0404.html
Click here for his actual peer-reviewed paper:
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Now get a load of this:
The BBC reported the collapse of the Solomon Building (WTC Building #7) 20 minutes BEFORE it actually collapsed. Watch that here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlL6ewlW6oc
How did the BBC know in advance that Building Seven would collapse? The fact that it was announced in advance is strong support that the flow of information on this tragedy was being controlled.
Were the people at the BBC the only people privy to this information? Probably not. Larry Silverstein was the leaseholder of Building #7. In a 2002 PBS documentary he talked about how he discussed the Building Seven situation with the fire department and how the decision was made by that department to "pull" it.
Well, there is one problem with his testimony that you may want to consider. It takes about a week to rig a building with explosives before you pull it. So are buildings constructed with built-in explosives just in case they need to be blown up in a hurry? Building #7 went down that same day. Whoops! Watch Larry's testimony from the PBS documentary here in this short clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs
Incidentally, luckily for Larry, he insured his property in the nick of time just six months before September 11th! It was a sweet deal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs
Incidentally, luckily for Larry, he insured his property in the nick of time just six months before September 11th! It was a sweet deal.
So who orchestrated this terrorist event anyway? They had to get past the FBI and CIA and prepare at least three buildings for demolition as well as direct the activities of men with box cutters (if they even existed). It’s clear from the evidence presented here so far that at least some of the media was in on this.
What else could explain the "BBC blunder?" Somebody had to be in control the information to the mainstream media....so who?
We do need a new investiagtion now, don't we?
Now see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw
Quotes
Because of the media silence about 9/11, it is all too easy to forget all of the people who did speak out and question the official story.
PETITION: Revise the U.S. government final report on the collapse of Building 7
Revise the U.S. government final report on the collapse of Building 7
Why this petition is important:
Building 7 of the World Trade Center, a 47 story building, contained offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) several financial institutions and then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management.
Despite never being hit by an airplane, Building 7 was reduced to a pile of rubble in about 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. After 9/11 this fact has been widely covered up by the U.S. mass media and was even omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.
NIST, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (a U.S. government agency) was authorized by Congress to determine “why and how WTC 7 collapsed.” NIST produced a preliminary draft of their final report in August, 2008 omitting the fact that Building 7 fell at free fall acceleration for part of its descent. After a physicist challenged NIST on this point the final report, in November 2008 admitted free fall acceleration for 105' or 2.25 seconds.
NIST wrote, “A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found . . . (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s . . . .” (Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 48)
However NIST claimed that this was consistent with their own fire based collapse theory which alleged that the entire collapse began because column 79 became laterally unsupported and buckled due to heat. NIST has refused to disclose their entire computer model and this column 79 theory was not based on any hard evidence.
NIST has already admitted the scientific fact of free fall acceleration in Building 7. This is remarkable! Now we ask that NIST tell what this means: that the entire building structure below for at least eight floors was removed just as Building 7 began to fall. Does this not imply use of explosives? We petition for a response.
This may give a very different understanding of what really happened on 9/11.
The reason this matters in 2012 is that the U.S. continues to kill countless people in the so called war on terror all based on the assumption that the World Trade Center attacks were done solely by Muslims.
Muslims would not have had the access to Building 7, the equipment, the knowledge of the sophisticated process of controlled demolition nor the time to arrange it.
I want peace for myself, my family and friends and millions of people I don’t even know.
Thank you.
Why this petition is important:
Building 7 of the World Trade Center, a 47 story building, contained offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) several financial institutions and then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management.
Despite never being hit by an airplane, Building 7 was reduced to a pile of rubble in about 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. After 9/11 this fact has been widely covered up by the U.S. mass media and was even omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.
NIST, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (a U.S. government agency) was authorized by Congress to determine “why and how WTC 7 collapsed.” NIST produced a preliminary draft of their final report in August, 2008 omitting the fact that Building 7 fell at free fall acceleration for part of its descent. After a physicist challenged NIST on this point the final report, in November 2008 admitted free fall acceleration for 105' or 2.25 seconds.
NIST wrote, “A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found . . . (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s . . . .” (Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 48)
However NIST claimed that this was consistent with their own fire based collapse theory which alleged that the entire collapse began because column 79 became laterally unsupported and buckled due to heat. NIST has refused to disclose their entire computer model and this column 79 theory was not based on any hard evidence.
NIST has already admitted the scientific fact of free fall acceleration in Building 7. This is remarkable! Now we ask that NIST tell what this means: that the entire building structure below for at least eight floors was removed just as Building 7 began to fall. Does this not imply use of explosives? We petition for a response.
This may give a very different understanding of what really happened on 9/11.
The reason this matters in 2012 is that the U.S. continues to kill countless people in the so called war on terror all based on the assumption that the World Trade Center attacks were done solely by Muslims.
Muslims would not have had the access to Building 7, the equipment, the knowledge of the sophisticated process of controlled demolition nor the time to arrange it.
I want peace for myself, my family and friends and millions of people I don’t even know.
Thank you.
FULL LENGTH MOVIE: 9/11 Press for Truth
This is one of the BEST movies.
It shows how hard the families of the victims of 9/11 fought the Bush Administration to get a real (and honest) investigation into the events surrounding 9/11 - and to their disappointment and sorrow ~ it did not happen.
SHORT FILM: Blindfold
We feel Eve's frustration as she trys to counter the cognitive dissonance her father has when encountering 9/11 truth for the first time.
This little flick has some familiar villains...a hate radio talker and a sleazy lawyer.
Bush Anything But Moronic - Dark Overtones in His Malapropisms
by Murray Whyte, November, 2002 (The Toronto Star)
When Mark Crispin Miller first set out to write Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder, about the ever-growing catalogue of President George W. Bush's verbal gaffes, he meant it for a laugh.
ED NOTE: This is another fascinating insight into the troubled mind of George W. Bush:
A renowned Washington psychoanalyst updates his portrait of George W.'s public persona—and how it has damaged the presidency.
Insightful and accessible, courageous and controversial, Bush on the Couch sheds startling new light on George W. Bush's psyche and its impact on the way he governs, tackling head-on the question few seem willing to ask: Is our president psychologically fit to run the country?
When Mark Crispin Miller first set out to write Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder, about the ever-growing catalogue of President George W. Bush's verbal gaffes, he meant it for a laugh.
But what he came to realize wasn't entirely amusing.
Since the 2000 presidential campaign, Miller has been compiling his own collection of Bush-isms, which have revealed, he says, a disquieting truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the free world. He's not a moron at all. On that point, Miller and Prime Minister Jean Chrtien agree.
But according to Miller, he's no friend.
"I did initially intend it to be a funny book. But that was before I had a chance to read through all the transcripts," Miller, an American author and a professor of culture and communication at New York University, said recently in Toronto.
"Bush is not an imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a lot of people miss."
Miller's judgment, that the president might suffer from a bona fide personality disorder, almost makes one long for the less menacing notion currently making the rounds: that the White House's current occupant is, in fact, simply an idiot.
If only. Miller's rendering of the president is bleaker than that. In studying Bush's various adventures in oration, he started to see a pattern emerging.
"He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's talking about revenge.
"When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine," Miller said.
"It's only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes."
While Miller's book has been praised for its "eloquence" and "playful use of language," it has enraged Bush supporters.
Bush's ascent in the eyes of many Americans, - his approval rating hovers at near 80 percent - was the direct result of tough talk following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In those speeches, Bush stumbled not at all; his language of retribution was clear.
It was a sharp contrast to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush. Even before the Supreme Court in 2001 had to intervene and rule on recounts in Florida after a contentious presidential election, a corps of journalists were salivating at the prospect: a bafflingly inarticulate man in a position of power not seen since vice-president Dan Quayle rode shotgun on George H.W. Bush's one term in office.
But equating Bush's malapropisms with Quayle's inability to spell "potato" is a dangerous assumption, Miller says.
At a public address in Nashville, Tenn., in September, Bush provided one of his most memorable stumbles. Trying to give strength to his case that Saddam Hussein had already deceived the West concerning his store of weapons, Bush was scripted to offer an old saying:
Since the 2000 presidential campaign, Miller has been compiling his own collection of Bush-isms, which have revealed, he says, a disquieting truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the free world. He's not a moron at all. On that point, Miller and Prime Minister Jean Chrtien agree.
But according to Miller, he's no friend.
"I did initially intend it to be a funny book. But that was before I had a chance to read through all the transcripts," Miller, an American author and a professor of culture and communication at New York University, said recently in Toronto.
"Bush is not an imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a lot of people miss."
Miller's judgment, that the president might suffer from a bona fide personality disorder, almost makes one long for the less menacing notion currently making the rounds: that the White House's current occupant is, in fact, simply an idiot.
If only. Miller's rendering of the president is bleaker than that. In studying Bush's various adventures in oration, he started to see a pattern emerging.
"He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's talking about revenge.
"When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine," Miller said.
"It's only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes."
While Miller's book has been praised for its "eloquence" and "playful use of language," it has enraged Bush supporters.
Bush's ascent in the eyes of many Americans, - his approval rating hovers at near 80 percent - was the direct result of tough talk following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In those speeches, Bush stumbled not at all; his language of retribution was clear.
It was a sharp contrast to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush. Even before the Supreme Court in 2001 had to intervene and rule on recounts in Florida after a contentious presidential election, a corps of journalists were salivating at the prospect: a bafflingly inarticulate man in a position of power not seen since vice-president Dan Quayle rode shotgun on George H.W. Bush's one term in office.
But equating Bush's malapropisms with Quayle's inability to spell "potato" is a dangerous assumption, Miller says.
At a public address in Nashville, Tenn., in September, Bush provided one of his most memorable stumbles. Trying to give strength to his case that Saddam Hussein had already deceived the West concerning his store of weapons, Bush was scripted to offer an old saying:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
What came out was the following:
"Fool me once, shame ... shame on ... you." (Long, uncomfortable pause.) "Fool me - can't get fooled again!"
Played for laughs everywhere, Miller saw a darkness underlying the gaffe.
"There's an episode of Happy Days, where The Fonz has to say, `I'm sorry' and can't do it. Same thing," Miller said.
"What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, `Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude."
If what Miller says is true - and it would take more than just observations to prove it - then Bush has achieved an astounding goal.
By stumbling blithely along, he has been able to push his image as "just folks" - a normal guy who screws up just like the rest of us.
This, in fact, is a central cog in his image-making machine, Miller says: Portraying the wealthy scion of one of America's most powerful families as a regular, imperfect Joe.
But the depiction, Miller says, is also remarkable for what it hides - imperfect, yes, but also detached, wealthy and unable to identify with the "folks" he's been designed to appeal to.
An example, Miller says, surfaced early in his presidential tenure.
"I know how hard it is to put food on your family," Bush was quoted as saying.
"That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to say, `Put food on your family's table' - it's because he doesn't care about people who can't put food on the table," Miller says.
So, when Bush is envisioning "a foreign-handed foreign policy," or observes on some point that "it's not the way that America is all about," Miller contends it's because he can't keep his focus on things that mean nothing to him.
"When he tries to talk about what this country stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it," he said.
This, then, is why he's so closely watched by his handlers, Miller says - not because he'll say something stupid, but because he'll overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he excels.
"He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He's much like Nixon. So they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper."
Miller, without question, is a man with a mission and laughter isn't it.
"I call him the feel bad president, because he's all about punishment and death," he said. "It would be a grave mistake to just play him for laughs."
"Fool me once, shame ... shame on ... you." (Long, uncomfortable pause.) "Fool me - can't get fooled again!"
Played for laughs everywhere, Miller saw a darkness underlying the gaffe.
"There's an episode of Happy Days, where The Fonz has to say, `I'm sorry' and can't do it. Same thing," Miller said.
"What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, `Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude."
If what Miller says is true - and it would take more than just observations to prove it - then Bush has achieved an astounding goal.
By stumbling blithely along, he has been able to push his image as "just folks" - a normal guy who screws up just like the rest of us.
This, in fact, is a central cog in his image-making machine, Miller says: Portraying the wealthy scion of one of America's most powerful families as a regular, imperfect Joe.
But the depiction, Miller says, is also remarkable for what it hides - imperfect, yes, but also detached, wealthy and unable to identify with the "folks" he's been designed to appeal to.
An example, Miller says, surfaced early in his presidential tenure.
"I know how hard it is to put food on your family," Bush was quoted as saying.
"That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to say, `Put food on your family's table' - it's because he doesn't care about people who can't put food on the table," Miller says.
So, when Bush is envisioning "a foreign-handed foreign policy," or observes on some point that "it's not the way that America is all about," Miller contends it's because he can't keep his focus on things that mean nothing to him.
"When he tries to talk about what this country stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it," he said.
This, then, is why he's so closely watched by his handlers, Miller says - not because he'll say something stupid, but because he'll overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he excels.
"He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He's much like Nixon. So they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper."
Miller, without question, is a man with a mission and laughter isn't it.
"I call him the feel bad president, because he's all about punishment and death," he said. "It would be a grave mistake to just play him for laughs."
ED NOTE: This is another fascinating insight into the troubled mind of George W. Bush:
A renowned Washington psychoanalyst updates his portrait of George W.'s public persona—and how it has damaged the presidency.
Insightful and accessible, courageous and controversial, Bush on the Couch sheds startling new light on George W. Bush's psyche and its impact on the way he governs, tackling head-on the question few seem willing to ask: Is our president psychologically fit to run the country?
With an eye for the subtleties of human behavior sharpened by thirty years of clinical practice, Dr. Justin A. Frank traces the development of Bush's character from childhood through his presidency, identifying and analyzing his patterns of thought, action, and communication.
The result is a troubling portrait filled with important revelations about our nation's leader
Applying Common Sense to New World Order Conspiracy Theories
by Scepcop, Sun Feb 05, 2012
Much of all this info regarding conspiracies is ambiguous. One can only speculate regarding the agenda behind conspiracies because it's all a secret of course. However, let's try to apply some common sense here.
Much of all this info regarding conspiracies is ambiguous. One can only speculate regarding the agenda behind conspiracies because it's all a secret of course. However, let's try to apply some common sense here.
All this conspiracy stuff is too black and white, almost like a religion. The elite can't be all "evil forces of darkness" vs. us the "innocent good guys". That is too black and white, with an "us vs. them" mentality, and more like what religions preach.
In reality, the world is very complex and is not that black and white. There must be some good people among the elite. They can't all be "the bad guys" like characters in some movie, can they? People in real life are not all good or all bad (like in the movies); they are a mixture of the two.
It's also hard to believe that so many people could be in on something and agree to it. In reality, it's very hard to get a lot of people to all agree without dissent to being in on the same agenda, especially people in power and high places since these types are used to getting their way, not being told what to do. The elite have very big egos, so imagine how much harder it would be to get them to all agree on some secret agenda.
Humans tend to fight and disagree, especially since they are governed by an innate moral conscience which is both in their DNA and in the "morphic resonance" energy field (coined by Rupert Sheldrake) that all living things share.
It's also hard to believe that so many people could be in on something and agree to it. In reality, it's very hard to get a lot of people to all agree without dissent to being in on the same agenda, especially people in power and high places since these types are used to getting their way, not being told what to do. The elite have very big egos, so imagine how much harder it would be to get them to all agree on some secret agenda.
Humans tend to fight and disagree, especially since they are governed by an innate moral conscience which is both in their DNA and in the "morphic resonance" energy field (coined by Rupert Sheldrake) that all living things share.
It's too far fetched to believe that these "shadow elite" are all some collective hive mind that is plotting sinister things against the world, as though they were all "minions of the dark side of the Force".
Nevertheless, conspiracies do exist in that powerful people do get together and make plans in secrecy. No one disputes that. The only question is: What kind of plans, secrets and conspiracies are they? Are we talking about mundane secrets - such as "under the table" deals and alliances, "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type of arrangements, and covert operations involving power and profits?
Nevertheless, conspiracies do exist in that powerful people do get together and make plans in secrecy. No one disputes that. The only question is: What kind of plans, secrets and conspiracies are they? Are we talking about mundane secrets - such as "under the table" deals and alliances, "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type of arrangements, and covert operations involving power and profits?
Or are we talking about a secret Illuminati plan of world domination and microchipping the population under a New World Order global government? Is there a fantastic conspiracy involving UFO's, Aliens and secret technology? Or just politicians with mundane dirty secrets involving money laundering scams, under the table deals, arms deals, sex scandals, and other mundane types of unethical behaviors?
Even Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the elite's long-time geostrategists, has admitted on public TV in an interview with Charlie Rose that "dirty secrets" and "under the table deals" exist among the elite, but denies that there is any "Illuminati NWO plot" to take over the world and instate a one world government. If there is a NWO plot though, then is every country in on it?
Even Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the elite's long-time geostrategists, has admitted on public TV in an interview with Charlie Rose that "dirty secrets" and "under the table deals" exist among the elite, but denies that there is any "Illuminati NWO plot" to take over the world and instate a one world government. If there is a NWO plot though, then is every country in on it?
Or just the US and UK elite and the Zionists behind them? It's too far fetched to believe that the governments of all 200 countries of the world would all agree to be in on something.
All we know for sure are:
- The media and government often lie and fabricate things.
- There is definitely a shadow government that works outside of the democratic process and public scrutiny, to implement big changes that the elite think tanks want that would take too long if the public were involved. The Iran Contra Scandal revealed that shadow governments do exist. This shadow government is involved in a lot of sinister operations, but for what purpose, we don't know.
- The US military industrial complex and elite class, or whoever runs the USA (it's certainly not the common people), are definitely war mongerers who have a history and pattern of starting ridiculous unnecessary wars that don't make sense. (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, etc.)They do not tell the public the truth about why they start them, but only give BS copout excuses that don't add up. So we can only speculate and guess on their true motives. All we know for sure is that they love getting involved with wars for some reason. Whatever their true reasons are, they are likely to be very disturbing.
- Too many important figures who would have changed the world for the better had they lived, have been murdered by too many lone nut cases (e.g. JFK, RFK, MLK, John Lennon). Had JFK and RFK lived, the Vietnam War would probably have never happened, millions of lives would have been saved, people would trust their government more, and the CIA/Federal Reserve/Military Industrial Complex (which Eisenhower warned about) may not have hijacked the USA as it has today. So two lone nuts changed the tide of world history for the worse? Yeah right.
Also, if Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the election in 2000, the Iraq War and War on Terror may have never happened, since Al Gore is not a war monger type, and millions of live may have been saved. (assuming of course, that the election was real and that Gore really wanted to win) I wonder how Ralph Nader sleeps at night, knowing that he could have prevented the Iraq War mess had he not stolen votes from Gore.
All we know for sure are:
- The media and government often lie and fabricate things.
- There is definitely a shadow government that works outside of the democratic process and public scrutiny, to implement big changes that the elite think tanks want that would take too long if the public were involved. The Iran Contra Scandal revealed that shadow governments do exist. This shadow government is involved in a lot of sinister operations, but for what purpose, we don't know.
- The US military industrial complex and elite class, or whoever runs the USA (it's certainly not the common people), are definitely war mongerers who have a history and pattern of starting ridiculous unnecessary wars that don't make sense. (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, etc.)They do not tell the public the truth about why they start them, but only give BS copout excuses that don't add up. So we can only speculate and guess on their true motives. All we know for sure is that they love getting involved with wars for some reason. Whatever their true reasons are, they are likely to be very disturbing.
- Too many important figures who would have changed the world for the better had they lived, have been murdered by too many lone nut cases (e.g. JFK, RFK, MLK, John Lennon). Had JFK and RFK lived, the Vietnam War would probably have never happened, millions of lives would have been saved, people would trust their government more, and the CIA/Federal Reserve/Military Industrial Complex (which Eisenhower warned about) may not have hijacked the USA as it has today. So two lone nuts changed the tide of world history for the worse? Yeah right.
Also, if Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the election in 2000, the Iraq War and War on Terror may have never happened, since Al Gore is not a war monger type, and millions of live may have been saved. (assuming of course, that the election was real and that Gore really wanted to win) I wonder how Ralph Nader sleeps at night, knowing that he could have prevented the Iraq War mess had he not stolen votes from Gore.
How can one stupid act from one stupid man change the course of the world like that and destroy millions of lives? It's just too convenient.
- The formation of the European Union and attempt to create a North American Union as well, are indicators of a NWO plan, since the formation of these unions would be a logical step they would take in order to consolidate power into an eventual one world government.
However, the key unanswered questions are:
- What is the true agenda of the elite? Are they really seeking to establish a NWO and one world government and have the population microchipped? Or do they just enjoy mind-blank everyone and reveling in the chaos they create and set up, which they derive a form of "dark ecstasy" from? (a theory proposed by conspiracy researcher and podcast host Jeff Grupp)
- What do they want? Is it just about power, control and profit? Don't they have enough of that? What more do they need? Do they have a more sinister and hidden motive?
- Are the elite of all countries involved in the NWO? Or is it just the US and UK?
- Could the whole NWO thing just be a diversion? Why else would they allow millions of videos about it on YouTube and millions of websites/forums about it to stay up? Is it all part of their plan to incite us into a revolution? And why would they let conspiracy leaders such as David Icke and Alex Jones spread conspiracy knowledge to so many disgruntled people and expose the plans of the elite? Icke travels the world doing public seminars to spread his message, yet nothing ever happens to him. Isn't that odd? Are they shills? Or is what they do part of the elite's plans? Or do the elite view them as too small of a problem to bother with, especially since anything that happens to a conspiracy leader will be interpreted as a "silencing act" by the elite?
- Even if a NWO or one world government succeeded, how long would it last? History has shown that Empires don't last long without public support. Not even Alexander the Great or Napoleon could hold an Empire together long term. Empires are easily toppled by a combination of many market forces. No elite group can stop that. The elite must know this. Any NWO would be short lived. So I gotta wonder what their real agenda is.
All of this is inconclusive and ambiguous. It's hard to say if there is a NWO plot or not, and if there is, what the plot is really about. The motives don't seem to make any sense.
- The formation of the European Union and attempt to create a North American Union as well, are indicators of a NWO plan, since the formation of these unions would be a logical step they would take in order to consolidate power into an eventual one world government.
However, the key unanswered questions are:
- What is the true agenda of the elite? Are they really seeking to establish a NWO and one world government and have the population microchipped? Or do they just enjoy mind-blank everyone and reveling in the chaos they create and set up, which they derive a form of "dark ecstasy" from? (a theory proposed by conspiracy researcher and podcast host Jeff Grupp)
- What do they want? Is it just about power, control and profit? Don't they have enough of that? What more do they need? Do they have a more sinister and hidden motive?
- Are the elite of all countries involved in the NWO? Or is it just the US and UK?
- Could the whole NWO thing just be a diversion? Why else would they allow millions of videos about it on YouTube and millions of websites/forums about it to stay up? Is it all part of their plan to incite us into a revolution? And why would they let conspiracy leaders such as David Icke and Alex Jones spread conspiracy knowledge to so many disgruntled people and expose the plans of the elite? Icke travels the world doing public seminars to spread his message, yet nothing ever happens to him. Isn't that odd? Are they shills? Or is what they do part of the elite's plans? Or do the elite view them as too small of a problem to bother with, especially since anything that happens to a conspiracy leader will be interpreted as a "silencing act" by the elite?
- Even if a NWO or one world government succeeded, how long would it last? History has shown that Empires don't last long without public support. Not even Alexander the Great or Napoleon could hold an Empire together long term. Empires are easily toppled by a combination of many market forces. No elite group can stop that. The elite must know this. Any NWO would be short lived. So I gotta wonder what their real agenda is.
All of this is inconclusive and ambiguous. It's hard to say if there is a NWO plot or not, and if there is, what the plot is really about. The motives don't seem to make any sense.
HUMOR: Al Qaeda Says "9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous"
Sometimes there is much truth in humor.
'Shadow Government' News To Congress
Reprint, February 11, 2009 by Francie Grace:
(CBS) Key congressional leaders say they didn't know President Bush had established a "shadow government," moving dozens of senior civilian managers to secret underground locations outside Washington to ensure that the federal government could survive a devastating terrorist attack on the nation's capital, The Washington Post says in its Saturday editions.
Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told the Post he had not been informed by the White House about the role, location or even the existence of the shadow government that the administration began to deploy the morning of the Sept. 11 hijackings.
An aide to House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he was also unaware of the administration's move.
Among Congress's GOP leadership, aides to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.), second in line to succeed the president if he became incapacitated, and to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) said they were not sure whether they knew.
Aides to Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) said he had not been told. As Senate president pro tempore, he is in line to become president after the House speaker.
Mr. Bush acknowledged yesterday that the administration had taken extensive measures to guarantee "the continuity of government," adding, "This is serious business."
Such an operation was conceived as a Cold War precaution against nuclear attack during the Eisenhower administration but never used until now. It went into effect in the first hours after the terror attacks and has evolved over time, said senior government officials who provided details of the plan.
Without confirming details of the government-in-waiting, Mr. Bush told reporters in Iowa: "We take the continuity of government issue seriously because our nation was under attack. And I still take the threats we receive from al Qaeda killers and terrorists very seriously."
"I have an obligation as the president and my administration has an obligation to the American people to put measures in place that should somebody be successful in attacking Washington there is an ongoing government," Mr. Bush said. "That is one reason why the vice president was going to undisclosed locations. This is serious business. And we take it seriously."
Under the classified "Continuity of Operations Plan," which was first reported by The Post in its Friday editions, high-ranking officials representing their departments have begun rotating in and out of the assignment at one of two fortified locations along the East Coast.
The Post said the first rotations were made in late October or early November, a fact confirmed by a senior government official late Thursday.
Officials who are activated for the duty live and work underground 24 hours a day, away from their families, according to the Post. The shadow government has sent home most of the first wave of deployed personnel, replacing them most commonly at 90-day intervals.
A government official who spoke to The Associated Press said President Bush does not foresee ever needing to turn over government functions to the secret operation, but believed it was prudent to implement the long-standing plan in light of the war on terrorism and persistent threats of future attacks.
The team, drawn from every Cabinet department and some independent agencies, would seek to prevent the collapse of essential government functions in the event of a disabling blow to Washington, the official said.
The underground government would try to contain disruptions of the nation's food and water supplies, transportation links, energy and telecommunications networks, public health and civil order, the Post reported. Later, it would begin to reconstitute the government.
The government-in-waiting is an extension of a policy that has kept Vice President Dick Cheney in secure, undisclosed locations away from Washington. Cheney has moved in and out of public view as threat levels have fluctuated.
As next in line to power behind Mr. Bush, he would need help running the government in a worst-case scenario.
"We take this issue extraordinarily seriously, and are committed to doing as thorough a job as possible to ensure the ongoing operations of the federal government," Joseph W. Hagin, White House deputy chief of staff, told the Post, though he declined to discuss details. "In the case of the use of a weapon of mass destruction, the federal government would be able to do its job and continue to provide key services and respond."
According to the Post, the backup government consists generally of officials from top career ranks, from GS-14 and GS-15 to members of the Senior Executive Service. The White House is represented by a "senior-level presence," one official said, but well below such Cabinet-ranked advisers as Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Many departments, including Justice and Treasury, have completed plans to delegate statutory powers to officials who would not normally exercise them, the Post said. Others do not need to make such legal transfers, or are holding them in reserve.
The report said civilians deployed for the operation are not allowed to take their families and may not tell anyone where they are going or why.
The two sites of the shadow government make use of local geological features to render them highly secure, the Post said. They are well stocked with food, water, medicine and other consumable supplies, and are capable of generating their own power.
(CBS) Key congressional leaders say they didn't know President Bush had established a "shadow government," moving dozens of senior civilian managers to secret underground locations outside Washington to ensure that the federal government could survive a devastating terrorist attack on the nation's capital, The Washington Post says in its Saturday editions.
Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told the Post he had not been informed by the White House about the role, location or even the existence of the shadow government that the administration began to deploy the morning of the Sept. 11 hijackings.
An aide to House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he was also unaware of the administration's move.
Among Congress's GOP leadership, aides to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.), second in line to succeed the president if he became incapacitated, and to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) said they were not sure whether they knew.
Aides to Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) said he had not been told. As Senate president pro tempore, he is in line to become president after the House speaker.
Mr. Bush acknowledged yesterday that the administration had taken extensive measures to guarantee "the continuity of government," adding, "This is serious business."
Such an operation was conceived as a Cold War precaution against nuclear attack during the Eisenhower administration but never used until now. It went into effect in the first hours after the terror attacks and has evolved over time, said senior government officials who provided details of the plan.
Without confirming details of the government-in-waiting, Mr. Bush told reporters in Iowa: "We take the continuity of government issue seriously because our nation was under attack. And I still take the threats we receive from al Qaeda killers and terrorists very seriously."
"I have an obligation as the president and my administration has an obligation to the American people to put measures in place that should somebody be successful in attacking Washington there is an ongoing government," Mr. Bush said. "That is one reason why the vice president was going to undisclosed locations. This is serious business. And we take it seriously."
Under the classified "Continuity of Operations Plan," which was first reported by The Post in its Friday editions, high-ranking officials representing their departments have begun rotating in and out of the assignment at one of two fortified locations along the East Coast.
The Post said the first rotations were made in late October or early November, a fact confirmed by a senior government official late Thursday.
Officials who are activated for the duty live and work underground 24 hours a day, away from their families, according to the Post. The shadow government has sent home most of the first wave of deployed personnel, replacing them most commonly at 90-day intervals.
A government official who spoke to The Associated Press said President Bush does not foresee ever needing to turn over government functions to the secret operation, but believed it was prudent to implement the long-standing plan in light of the war on terrorism and persistent threats of future attacks.
The team, drawn from every Cabinet department and some independent agencies, would seek to prevent the collapse of essential government functions in the event of a disabling blow to Washington, the official said.
The underground government would try to contain disruptions of the nation's food and water supplies, transportation links, energy and telecommunications networks, public health and civil order, the Post reported. Later, it would begin to reconstitute the government.
The government-in-waiting is an extension of a policy that has kept Vice President Dick Cheney in secure, undisclosed locations away from Washington. Cheney has moved in and out of public view as threat levels have fluctuated.
As next in line to power behind Mr. Bush, he would need help running the government in a worst-case scenario.
"We take this issue extraordinarily seriously, and are committed to doing as thorough a job as possible to ensure the ongoing operations of the federal government," Joseph W. Hagin, White House deputy chief of staff, told the Post, though he declined to discuss details. "In the case of the use of a weapon of mass destruction, the federal government would be able to do its job and continue to provide key services and respond."
According to the Post, the backup government consists generally of officials from top career ranks, from GS-14 and GS-15 to members of the Senior Executive Service. The White House is represented by a "senior-level presence," one official said, but well below such Cabinet-ranked advisers as Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Many departments, including Justice and Treasury, have completed plans to delegate statutory powers to officials who would not normally exercise them, the Post said. Others do not need to make such legal transfers, or are holding them in reserve.
The report said civilians deployed for the operation are not allowed to take their families and may not tell anyone where they are going or why.
The two sites of the shadow government make use of local geological features to render them highly secure, the Post said. They are well stocked with food, water, medicine and other consumable supplies, and are capable of generating their own power.
"Shear" Ignorance: NIST and Building #7
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) LIED about the collapse of WTC Building #7.
To access these images, you have to right click and 'save as'
Drawings used in this video:
E12/13 link: http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/9155/wtc7frankele1213.png
S810 link: http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8417/wtc7cantors810.png
S820 link: http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8043/wtc7cantors820.png
Drawings showing more shear studs detail:
S24a link: http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7158/wtc7cantors24a.png
To access these images, you have to right click and 'save as'
Drawings used in this video:
E12/13 link: http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/9155/wtc7frankele1213.png
S810 link: http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8417/wtc7cantors810.png
S820 link: http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8043/wtc7cantors820.png
Drawings showing more shear studs detail:
S24a link: http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7158/wtc7cantors24a.png
CIT publishes response to David Chandler & Jonathan Cole's Joint Statement about the 9/11 Pentagon Attack
One wonders if those who appear to have recently signed on to marginalize, ridicule, misrepresent and attack CIT, refuse to debate why they support the official govt. official story of the Pentagon... might possibly be part of an intelligence infiltration team?
Some of these people were considered "heros" for telling the truth about the WTC attacks and they would make great agents for the "official govt story regards the Pentagon".
Unfortunately they fool a lot of truthers who have come to trust them. The group that now controlls 911blogger has also "gone over to the dark side" I wonder how much the government cover-up department pays for this kind of work? I assume it is plenty.
"We've been put in the difficult position of having to defend ourselves against people whose work regarding the destruction of the World Trade Center we respect and appreciate. Although we had never spoken to David Chandler or Jonathan Cole prior to the publication of their "joint statement" on the Pentagon attack, we had always considered them natural allies, had never badmouthed them or had any inclination to do so, and had even praised their work.
Unfortunately they did not have the courtesy or sense to get in touch with us to see if we had any responses to their apparent serious issues with our work before publicly denouncing it. The result, as we have now documented in great detail, was a simplistic, horribly sloppy, and defamatory essay which reveals that, at best, they had barely spent any time at all on our website, let alone bothered to view our extensive catalog of video presentations to familiarize themselves with the full scope -- or even many of the basics -- of the evidence we present, or us personally, before rushing to judgment and aggressively attacking us.
Due to the frequent and extreme falsity of their claims, a very lengthy response was necessitated. Sometimes a single sentence would have multiple false and/or misleading claims requiring several paragraphs to untangle. We'd have preferred a shorter rebuttal, but there was no other way to do it if we were to remain accurate and thorough, as we strive to do in everything we publish.
While it was frankly quite obnoxious to have to spend so much time refuting a such a simplistic and shoddy essay that these two men clearly did not put much time into at all, the silver lining is that it gave us an opportunity to address their essay in the context of the dishonest and dishonorable campaign being waged against CIT by a relatively small clique which has gained control over 911Blogger.com, where we are not only "censored", but more importantly, attacked on a virtually daily basis with misinformation and disinformation and denied a "right of reply". For some reason David Chandler apparently has no problem with this situation considering that he published the "joint statement" by him and Jonathan Cole there and then further badmouthed us and our work in the comments section.
Given these circumstances, and the wide-ranging nature of our response to David Chandler and Jonathan Cole, we ask you to please set aside AT LEAST an hour or two to read our response in full so that you can hear our perspective. Unlike Chandler and Cole's essay, our response is heavily sourced, so if you can set aside extra time to REALLY dig into its contents and follow the links and sources, even if you do so over the course of several days, this will give you a MUCH more detailed look at the intricacies of what is going on here, and we feel that the reality of the situation will become that much more clear to you. This is an especially important thing for you to do if you are a regular reader of 911Blogger, since this means that you have likely spent hours over the past months or even years reading the frequent bogus attacks against us which we are forbidden from responding to.
I'd like to thank our webmaster for his critical help with writing this response and putting it together. Please pass it along to anyone you can and encourage them to read it. Thank you for paying attention to both sides of this manufactured controversy by reading our entire response":
http://www.CitizenInvestigationTeam.com/CIT-Response-to-David-Chandler-and-Jonathan-Cole-Pentagon-Statement
Sincerely,
Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
"We've been put in the difficult position of having to defend ourselves against people whose work regarding the destruction of the World Trade Center we respect and appreciate. Although we had never spoken to David Chandler or Jonathan Cole prior to the publication of their "joint statement" on the Pentagon attack, we had always considered them natural allies, had never badmouthed them or had any inclination to do so, and had even praised their work.
Unfortunately they did not have the courtesy or sense to get in touch with us to see if we had any responses to their apparent serious issues with our work before publicly denouncing it. The result, as we have now documented in great detail, was a simplistic, horribly sloppy, and defamatory essay which reveals that, at best, they had barely spent any time at all on our website, let alone bothered to view our extensive catalog of video presentations to familiarize themselves with the full scope -- or even many of the basics -- of the evidence we present, or us personally, before rushing to judgment and aggressively attacking us.
Due to the frequent and extreme falsity of their claims, a very lengthy response was necessitated. Sometimes a single sentence would have multiple false and/or misleading claims requiring several paragraphs to untangle. We'd have preferred a shorter rebuttal, but there was no other way to do it if we were to remain accurate and thorough, as we strive to do in everything we publish.
While it was frankly quite obnoxious to have to spend so much time refuting a such a simplistic and shoddy essay that these two men clearly did not put much time into at all, the silver lining is that it gave us an opportunity to address their essay in the context of the dishonest and dishonorable campaign being waged against CIT by a relatively small clique which has gained control over 911Blogger.com, where we are not only "censored", but more importantly, attacked on a virtually daily basis with misinformation and disinformation and denied a "right of reply". For some reason David Chandler apparently has no problem with this situation considering that he published the "joint statement" by him and Jonathan Cole there and then further badmouthed us and our work in the comments section.
Given these circumstances, and the wide-ranging nature of our response to David Chandler and Jonathan Cole, we ask you to please set aside AT LEAST an hour or two to read our response in full so that you can hear our perspective. Unlike Chandler and Cole's essay, our response is heavily sourced, so if you can set aside extra time to REALLY dig into its contents and follow the links and sources, even if you do so over the course of several days, this will give you a MUCH more detailed look at the intricacies of what is going on here, and we feel that the reality of the situation will become that much more clear to you. This is an especially important thing for you to do if you are a regular reader of 911Blogger, since this means that you have likely spent hours over the past months or even years reading the frequent bogus attacks against us which we are forbidden from responding to.
I'd like to thank our webmaster for his critical help with writing this response and putting it together. Please pass it along to anyone you can and encourage them to read it. Thank you for paying attention to both sides of this manufactured controversy by reading our entire response":
http://www.CitizenInvestigationTeam.com/CIT-Response-to-David-Chandler-and-Jonathan-Cole-Pentagon-Statement
Sincerely,
Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
CIT Controversy for Dummies
This isn't rocket science folks. It's pretty simple:
THE OFFICIAL GOVT STORY: The Red Line indicates the path of a "hijacked" plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. As it flew on a path to the South of the Citgo Station, it hit and knocked down five light poles (yellow lines).
One of the light poles that got knocked down by the airplane went through the windshield of cab driver, Lloyde England.
CIT EVIDENCE (Blue Line) PROVES THE OFFICIAL STORY TO BE A LIE: Citizen's Investigation Team (CIT) went to DC and found dozens of eye-witnesses to the Pentago attack who had been standing at the nearby CITGO gas station and Arlington National Cemetery on the morning of 9/11.
All of these eye-witnesses independently confirm the (blue line) flight path to the North of the Citgo Station.
CIT found and interviewed the cab driver on tape. If you watch it, anyone can see that Lloyde England’s account is not at all credible and he is unable to offer a remotely plausible story (i.e., he is lying - and did it badly).
So what does the CIT evidence suggest?
The plane passing to the north side of the Citgo Station proves the light poles could not have been knocked down by an airplane* and that the Pentagon was an inside job.
All of the witnesses prove the North path - namely the officers at the Citgo, stood by where they saw the plane even after learning the implications. Ditto federal employees at the Cemetary.
The witnesses CIT interviewed would have a better idea than any others to tell us where the plane flew in relation to the gas station....and all agree that it was a North path.
About those five downed light poles:
With the CIT proof of a North path plane, these light poles could not have been knocked down by the plane as claimed in the official story.
Again absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don’t need to find witnesses who saw light poles being planted as we have proof that they WERE planted (thanks to Lloyde England's lies).
Planted debris could have been in there before the explosion. Remember the section that was “hit” was under “renovation” and much of he area was unoccupied. This has been covered over and over.
Again absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don’t need to find witnesses who saw light poles being planted as we have proof that they WERE planted (thanks to Lloyde England's lies).
Again, it was likely done in the middle of the night using vans or trucks under the guise of securing the area for the presidents arrival scheduled sept 11 afternoon. The foundations were likely busted when they took down the original light poles. Not hard to do. Light pole removal accomplished over weeks or months would go unnoticed as it would appear to be normal highway work. Nothing that would be memorable.
Why is CIT controversial?
It isn't controversial. It is rock-solid evidence.
So why the big flap over CIT?
For starters, no genuine 9/11 truthers would fight to suppress these eye-witness accounts, especially when many of these witnesses including police officers, would testify to it.
It is interesting to note that no detractor of CIT will agree to a live debate (and what does that tell you)? It is also interesting that CIT and all of its supporters have been banned from 911blogger.
Those who marginalize and ridicule and misrepresent CIT, and minimize the importance of their evidence are most likely part of an intelligence infiltration team.
So what can you do about it?
You have to ask yourself why these so called truthers won’t let the witnesses speak for themselves and let the chips fall where they may.
Look at the CIT evidence for yourself and decide. If you want the truth about 911 to come out, don't "go along to get along" in this effort to marginalize CIT.
What Happened to Russell Pickering's Website Pentagonresearch.com?
Russell Pickering is a former 9/11 Pentagon event researcher who was present with Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) on their first research trip to Arlington, VA in 2006.
Craig Ranke, CIT: "This bit of history explains how he eventually let it slip that he initially withheld from us the information about the north of the Citgo witness account of station employee Robert Turcios.
When he realized we would likely find out about Robert on our own when we visited the station the next day, Russell hastily informed us of the witness at the last minute but tried casting doubt on the source (the station manager) by falsely suggesting she bizarrely changed her story within minutes, having allegedly claimed Robert was a female at first."
For some more interesting details, please read the following article by Citizen's Investigation Team, January 27, 2012 (also reprinted below):
For some more interesting details, please read the following article by Citizen's Investigation Team, January 27, 2012 (also reprinted below):
What Happened to Russell Pickering's Website Pentagonresearch.com?
Russell Pickering was arguably the most well known 9/11 Pentagon event researcher for a few years prior to December 2007 when he dramatically "quit" the truth movement as documented here. He was the creator and owner of the now defunct website pentagonresearch.com that is cited numerous times in David Ray Griffin's book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". An archive of his site from February 2007 can be found here:
www.web.archive.org/web/20070207221439/http://pentagonresearch.com -cached backup
Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) spent a few days with Russell in person during our very first research trip to Arlington, VA in late August 2006 while we were volunteering as research consultants to the 9/11 documentary "Loose Change Final Cut" by Dylan Avery.
We respected some of Russell's work that he had already published at the time even if we disagreed with his conclusions. The relationship started out amicable but turned progressively ugly after we returned to Arlington a second time (without him and Dylan) in November of 2006 to obtain the witness interviews at the former Citgo proving that the plane flew north of the gas station and therefore did not hit the light poles or Pentagon.
Russell had a reputation for being professional, logical, and even-tempered, but after we obtained this evidence he started emotionally spiraling out of control while desperately working to cast doubt on our findings with an aggressive campaign against us personally.
Before we met Russell in person on our first research trip he had already proclaimed to us his belief that a large airplane hit the Pentagon. He suggested that it was not piloted by alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour as claimed by the government but that it was likely "remote controlled" into the building. He had no evidence to support this claim and merely asserted it as his unsubstantiated belief.
During this 2006 research trip Russell started expressing concern and frustration with his research as he states in the following two minute video:
Listen to audio here (1.81 mb).
Download video here (28.5 mb).
Despite this dramatically expressed extreme uncertainty with his findings and conclusions, only a few days after we returned he was all of the sudden more sure than ever of a large plane impact. September 18th, 2006 he said:
"My official statement now on the Pentagon is that something with a wingspan of greater than 100 feet but less than 140 hit the building. [...] If I were asked what my belief is, it is that a 757 hit the building..."
-screenshot
-original source -cached backup
Notice how Russell does not cite anything new to explain what lifted the frustration he expressed in the video less than 30 days prior. His certainty in the official impact narrative only continued to grow as we proceeded to uncover overwhelming evidence proving otherwise. Instead of providing counter-evidence, he responded with steadily increased personal attacks against us, a reaction that discredits him as a logical 9/11 truth seeker.
He was further discredited in August 2007 when he let it slip that he found out about the north side witness a day before we all visited the Citgo station together. This is explained and sourced here. This is significant because all of us (including Dylan) remembered that Russell first mentioned the witness after we arrived at the station.
Before we met Russell in person on our first research trip he had already proclaimed to us his belief that a large airplane hit the Pentagon. He suggested that it was not piloted by alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour as claimed by the government but that it was likely "remote controlled" into the building. He had no evidence to support this claim and merely asserted it as his unsubstantiated belief.
During this 2006 research trip Russell started expressing concern and frustration with his research as he states in the following two minute video:
Listen to audio here (1.81 mb).
Download video here (28.5 mb).
Despite this dramatically expressed extreme uncertainty with his findings and conclusions, only a few days after we returned he was all of the sudden more sure than ever of a large plane impact. September 18th, 2006 he said:
"My official statement now on the Pentagon is that something with a wingspan of greater than 100 feet but less than 140 hit the building. [...] If I were asked what my belief is, it is that a 757 hit the building..."
-screenshot
-original source -cached backup
Notice how Russell does not cite anything new to explain what lifted the frustration he expressed in the video less than 30 days prior. His certainty in the official impact narrative only continued to grow as we proceeded to uncover overwhelming evidence proving otherwise. Instead of providing counter-evidence, he responded with steadily increased personal attacks against us, a reaction that discredits him as a logical 9/11 truth seeker.
He was further discredited in August 2007 when he let it slip that he found out about the north side witness a day before we all visited the Citgo station together. This is explained and sourced here. This is significant because all of us (including Dylan) remembered that Russell first mentioned the witness after we arrived at the station.
This means he withheld that information for a day until he knew we would likely find out about it ourselves and he felt he had no choice but to tell us. We were supposed to share all of our findings with each other as the trip progressed in order to keep each other honest, yet Russell withheld key information likely hoping that we would go home the next day without ever discovering it.
Russell was well aware that a plane on the north side could not possibly have created the damage trail, obviously making this critical information that he should have immediately shared with us.
Pickering eventually removed his entire website with all of his "research" from the internet and, as already mentioned and sourced in the beginning of this essay, he quit 9/11 research all together. The only thing we are aware that he has published regarding 9/11 since then was titled "My Pentagon Manifesto (In Retrospect)" which was published in the beginning of 2011 at a variety of websites (archived here).
Pickering eventually removed his entire website with all of his "research" from the internet and, as already mentioned and sourced in the beginning of this essay, he quit 9/11 research all together. The only thing we are aware that he has published regarding 9/11 since then was titled "My Pentagon Manifesto (In Retrospect)" which was published in the beginning of 2011 at a variety of websites (archived here).
If you search the title you may notice that in some places his name has been removed. It seems as though Russell has made an effort within the last few weeks to erase his name from the internet in an attempt to hide his significant history with the 9/11 truth movement.
In light of this effort, this essay is meant to document for the historical record our experience dealing with his subversive behavior. As made clear in his "manifesto", Russell authoritatively states that be believes with "100% certainty an aircraft hit the Pentagon" and even goes so far as to call it a "physical fact".
Of course he ignores the fact that we have continued our investigation and have provided an overwhelming amount of additional evidence validating our initial findings since he "quit" at the end of 2007.
Since Russell has removed himself from the discussion we have had to deal with several other entities who claim to be part of the 9/11 truth movement but dedicate a significant amount of energy to fraudulently casting aspersions on our findings and our characters.
Since Russell has removed himself from the discussion we have had to deal with several other entities who claim to be part of the 9/11 truth movement but dedicate a significant amount of energy to fraudulently casting aspersions on our findings and our characters.
Details regarding much of that and responses to their arguments are provided in a comprehensive essay that can be found here. We highly recommend that everyone who may have heard about these accusations takes the time to read that essay in full in order to get both sides of the argument. This will help you to understand the scope and context of the numerous attacks against us from those who have followed Russell Pickering's lead.
The fact that CIT is still around exposing the 9/11 deception while our detractors keep falling by the wayside only to be replaced by other shadowy entities says it all. Respected media critic Barrie Zwicker put it best in his endorsement of our work:
"Arguably no single group is being targeted more toxically than the honest citizen detectives of CIT. That this disinformation campaign is being waged is a signal tribute to the historic importance of CIT’s work -- work that must be supported unflaggingly."
The fact that CIT is still around exposing the 9/11 deception while our detractors keep falling by the wayside only to be replaced by other shadowy entities says it all. Respected media critic Barrie Zwicker put it best in his endorsement of our work:
"Arguably no single group is being targeted more toxically than the honest citizen detectives of CIT. That this disinformation campaign is being waged is a signal tribute to the historic importance of CIT’s work -- work that must be supported unflaggingly."
*Editor note continued: The thing we find bizarre is that many of CIT’s detractors support the official government claim that a 757 did hit the Pentagon on 9/11. This ignores most of the physical evidence: Where’s the wreckage? Where’s the damage caused by the wings hitting the building? Where are the wings? What caused the punch-out hole? What caused the destruction and deaths in the Pentagon’s innermost ring?
We have strong evidence that explosives were planted inside, and, according to the Flight Data Recorder that was supposedly found inside the building, the plane would have been too high to hit the building and its trajectory would also have had it missing the five downed light poles.
Both Ranke and Marquis (CIT) have turned up numerous credible eyewitness testimony that proves the "official story" wrong - and consequently they have been banned from 911Blogger so they can never answer the constant stream of attacks (many personal) levelled at them.
We have strong evidence that explosives were planted inside, and, according to the Flight Data Recorder that was supposedly found inside the building, the plane would have been too high to hit the building and its trajectory would also have had it missing the five downed light poles.
Both Ranke and Marquis (CIT) have turned up numerous credible eyewitness testimony that proves the "official story" wrong - and consequently they have been banned from 911Blogger so they can never answer the constant stream of attacks (many personal) levelled at them.
Is this criticism out of proportion with the facts? Does it ring true? Or is there another agenda? Who are the CIT detractors really working for? It does not appear to be the TRUTH.
This is an excellent video that explains how CIT began (and thank heavens it did).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
