Mosque approved at Ground Zero

[zabster151]

hahahahaha structure mag thats what ya got lol common give me a break they just put whever nist says. it still does not enplane how it fell into its own footprint all it says is that an office fire spread rapidly and made the building collapse like demo. hahahahaha what joke nice try next. wait the problem is that the answer is IT WAS DEMO. o yea and stop saying conspiracy theory guy, i just want to know the truth. and when everything you look at points to demo and you can see it with your own 2 eyes. its hardly a theory.

and no there is not anything to debunk 9/11 the steal never should have melted. and never in history has a steal structure collapsed into its own footprint due to office fire. and this day 3 did. amazing http://ae911truth.org/

these guys built the building they know it was demo i mean come on.....

[stevey_6t9]

hahahahaha structure mag thats what ya got lol common give me a break they just put whever nist says. it still does not enplane how it fell into its own footprint all it says is that an office fire spread rapidly and made the building collapse like demo. hahahahaha what joke nice try next. wait the problem is that the answer is IT WAS DEMO. o yea and stop saying conspiracy theory guy, i just want to know the truth. and when everything you look at points to demo and you can see it with your own 2 eyes. its hardly a theory.

and no there is not anything to debunk 9/11 the steal never should have melted. and never in history has a steal structure collapsed into its own footprint due to office fire. and this day 3 did. amazing http://ae911truth.org/

these guys built the building they know it was demo i mean come on.....

ok lets say the US government DID do the demolition themselves in order for a reason to invade afghanistan/iraq....

would you say the government also paid al-qaeda to take the responsibility for the attacks?

would al-qaeda really agree to let the US invade afghanistan, there home country for money for taking that blame?

wouldnt it be better for al-quaeda to take the money, and say they were bribed by the US, causing massive civil disruption and chaos in the US and possibly a over throwing of the government.

It doesnt make sense. Afghasnistan was a safe haven for terrorists, the last thing they would want is the US occupying it and throwing them out of power.

[Flagg]

I wouldn't call myself a conspiracy nut but there was something very fishy about 911. You will get people that today still believe that we Neil Armstrong never walked on the Moon (which of course he did). I even made a thread about Conspiracy Theories:

http://forums.steroid.com/showthread...t=State+Denial

What I do know is the truth, is the Leaders of the World prefer to treat it's citiziens like stupid, God fearing sheep and will continue to treat us so.

@Stevey6T9, if the US government was responsible for setting up those attacks, it has been suggested that the Terrorist Cell was having it's strings being pulled by US powers, even though it believed it wasn't.

The whole thing is very hard to swallow. I don't think anyone has any idea of the implications for the whole world IF America some how had a hand in those plane attacks.

[stevey_6t9]

I wouldn't call myself a conspiracy nut but there was something very fishy about 911. You will get people that today still believe that we Neil Armstrong never walked on the Moon (which of course he did). I even made a thread about Conspiracy Theories:

http://forums.steroid.com/showthread...t=State+Denial

What I do know is the truth, is the Leaders of the World prefer to treat it's citiziens like stupid, God fearing sheep and will continue to treat us so.

@Stevey6T9, if the US government was responsible for setting up those attacks, it has been suggested that the Terrorist Cell was having it's strings being pulled by US powers, even though it believed it wasn't.

The whole thing is very hard to swallow. I don't think anyone has any idea of the implications for the whole world IF America some how had a hand in those plane attacks.

agreed.

imagine if it got out or was leaked and proven.

the whole western world would go into chaos, in the US there would be huge riots, civil unrest, storming of government facilities and probably another civil war.

[DSM4Life]

wow, DSM4Life como'n you are smarter then this i know you are. and please will someone tell me how building 7 fell. remember no plane.

Horus, they just can't comprehend what happened

I love how you guys point the finger at others stating they are dumb for not facing the facts. In reality you don't even know the facts yourself ! You are basing your facts on someone else's OPINIONS !

Are you a certified implosive/explosive expert ? Have you ever practice demolition ? Then your opinion is as worthless as the next persons.

[zabster151]

common really i don't need a degree to see the truth, and no i am not just stating somone els's opinion i have done allot of research for 6 years or so from many different sources. i have posted research sources here so everyone can see the info for themselves and make a decision for themselves. not like the news which will tell you what to believe. yes i am telling you my opinion but at the same time i am giving really good sources. ae911truth.org is filled with top certified implosive explosive expert enginers contractors top in there field so i share that so you can make your own desion.

[zabster151]

and i know it would be very bad if the truth came out. but things are headed down hill with the bad policies and lying cheating stealing from the middle class. truth needs to be heard America has been sugar coated for to long now.

[goodlifting]

I love how you guys point the finger at others stating they are dumb for not facing the facts. In reality you don't even know the facts yourself ! You are basing your facts on someone else's OPINIONS !

Are you a certified implosive/explosive expert ? Have you ever practice demolition ? Then your opinion is as worthless as the next persons.

i agree dsm. this whole demo conspiracy is really nothing more than a therory.

it's hard to believe that engineers and architecs built the twins to fall straight over onto other buildings if they were to be structurally compromised. i would think that if the buildings were to fall, they would be built to collaps onto they're footprints to minimize damage as much as possible exactly as they did.

i think the developers knew exactly what they were doing during the building of the twins and don't think they would overlook the fact that the structures could possible come down. so why wouldn't they be built to fall as they did?

[zabster151]

actually if you read this information that the Builders, engineers of the building post that each building was built to withstand 2-3 planes bigger then those to hit them. and no building is built to fall into its own foot print. they are built not to fall, and another thing research how the building was built its a rats nest its impossible to fall like that. most likely it would be a very bad fire but would never collapse the building.

[BJJ]

I don't know, I am very sad actually...

This thread is the perfect example of the society we live in.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[HoRuS]

I don't know, I am very sad actually...

This thread is the perfect example of the society we live in.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Thats just how society is BJJ.

People will believe what suits them the best. Those who don't want to believe that the governments explanation of 9/11 events is all fabricated with numerous unexplainable inconsistencies that conflict with mathematics along with eyewitness reports will never be convinced otherwise because they will never research all the inconsistencies. They simply dont want to know the truth.

Much like all the guys who have convinced themselves that their fake HGH is real because they dont want to believe they wasted $1000's on bunk gear.

[DSM4Life]

i agree dsm. this whole demo conspiracy is really nothing more than a therory.

it's hard to believe that engineers and architecs built the twins to fall straight over onto other buildings if they were to be structurally compromised. i would think that if the buildings were to fall, they would be built to collaps onto they're footprints to minimize damage as much as possible exactly as they did.

i think the developers knew exactly what they were doing during the building of the twins and don't think they would overlook the fact that the structures could possible come down. so why wouldn't they be built to fall as they did?

I watched an interview of one engineer who helped build/create the towers and he said the same time. We had to design them so if something were to happen they wouldn't fall over onto 1000 of people in the streets. But i am sure zabster151 knows more than the people who built the buildings and he will grace us with his vast knowledge on the topic.

[HoRuS]

I watched an interview of one engineer who helped build/create the towers and he said the same time. We had to design them so if something were to happen they wouldn't fall over onto 1000 of people in the streets. But i am sure zabster151 knows more than the people who built the buildings and he will grace us with his vast knowledge on the topic.

I've watched numerous interviews with Doctors, Professors and Research Scientists, all of whom claimed that AAS will do serious damage to your health and were of no benefit to increasing muscle mass. Again I'll do my own research and make my own decision.

I also read reports that one of the engineers whom helped design the towers said that certain bracing was only looped around rails and was not solidly attached and may have been a design fault that made the towers weak. This was proven wrong by photos of the construction showing that all braces were solidly welded to the beams. Any of these people could have been paid to say whatever the government wanted them to say. There are just so many things that contradict the governments version of events.

Years ago, cigarettes were advertised as being healthy for you and they were claimed to help reduce stress and anxiety and promoted a sense of wellbeing. The government wanted us to believe this because of the taxes they were raking in from the sales.

I don't think anyone is dumb if they choose to believe that 3 steel constructed highrise buildings collapsed from fire when it has never happened before in history because they are designed to withstand such events without collapsing and killing all those on lower floors, I simply choose to question things that have obvious inconsistencies.

Once again for those who didn't read those inconsistencies.....

One involves the story about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. We had three buildings collapse there, the North Tower [WTC 1], the South Tower [WTC 2] and Building 7 [WTC 7]. Each was a high-rise steel-frame building. Now, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never in the history of the universe been brought down by fire. And yet on this day, three of them were allegedly brought down by fire. There have been experiments with buildings raging with fire. In the experiments, fire made them sag a little, but never caused them to collapse. [See Madrid high-rise fire, page 34.] And yet on 9/11 these three buildings, which had relatively small fires in them, collapsed.

People have the image of the South Tower in their minds, and they think, Oh, these were towering infernos. But most of the jet fuel exploded outside of the South Tower, which produced the really dramatic effect. But you have to remember, that effect only lasted for a few seconds, and the fuel burned up very quickly. In the South Tower there was relatively little fuel to feed the fire inside; so it would have had to be feeding on carpets, on desks and things like that. And yet the South Tower collapsed in less than an hour after it was hit.

The collapse of Building 7 is particularly unusual, and yet the 9/11 Commission never mentions it once in their report. Somehow fire got started in Building 7, which is two blocks away and was never hit by a plane. There was no jet fuel inside to feed the fire. There are photographs that show only small fires on floors 7 and 12 of this 47-story building. And yet at 5:20 in the afternoon it comes collapsing down in exactly the same way as the other buildings.


Now I stress in the same way because they all came straight down into their own footprint for the most part. They collapsed very quickly, within about ten seconds. That's amazing when you think about it, that fire could produce that kind of effect, just like controlled demolition. In fact, on that very night, Dan Rather-viewing the collapse of Building 7-blurted out, "It looked just like one of those controlled demolitions."

Further evidence of Building 7 being brought down by controlled demolition came from Larry Silverstein, the man who had recently taken a lease on the entire complex. In a PBS documentary from September 2002, Silverstein said he told the fire commander that the smartest thing to do was "pull it." Next, he says, they "made that decision to pull" and watched the building collapse. Pull is a term commonly used to describe using explosives to demolish a building. Silverstein allegedly made almost $500 million in profit from the collapse of Building 7.

[goodlifting]

I watched an interview of one engineer who helped build/create the towers and he said the same time. We had to design them so if something were to happen they wouldn't fall over onto 1000 of people in the streets. But i am sure zabster151 knows more than the people who built the buildings and he will grace us with his vast knowledge on the topic.

i dunno dsm. i'm feeling kinda stupid right now.

i've watched the videos over and over again. i've watched the helpless people in the upper floors make the choice to jump or burn to death. it pisses me off.

would you really live in a country that did that do it's own citizens to make a cheap ass political point and an excuse to invade another country? if you live in the u.s. and believe that our own our govt. fabricated the carnage that occured on 9/11 then why aren't you sprinting the hell out of the country?our govt. isn't perfect but jesus christ this isn't rwanda.

the people who are supporting the theory that this was a govt. conspiracy are fishing pretty damn hard. there's nothing wrong with questioning inconsistancies but it gets a bit ridculous after a while.

[DSM4Life]

i dunno dsm. i'm feeling kinda stupid right now.

i've watched the videos over and over again. i've watched the helpless people in the upper floors make the choice to jump or burn to death. it pisses me off.

would you really live in a country that did that do it's own citizens to make a cheap ass political point and an excuse to invade another country? if you live in the u.s. and believe that our own our govt. fabricated the carnage that occured on 9/11 then why aren't you sprinting the hell out of the country?our govt. isn't perfect but jesus christ this isn't rwanda.

the people who are supporting the theory that this was a govt. conspiracy are fishing pretty damn hard. there's nothing wrong with questioning inconsistancies but it gets a bit ridculous after a while.

I DO NOT support the conspiracy theory that our government had a hand in this.

[warchild]

.....

[goodlifting]

I DO NOT support the conspiracy theory that our government had a hand in this.

yeah i know you don't. i was ranting towards the supporters. should've stated that a bit better. my bad.

[DSM4Life]

I don't think our government is smart enough to pull it off.

[zabster151]

it does not matter that you people do not support the truth that is trying to be told. but just to let you know how big this really is. over half of the US thats 150 million people believe and support this. because they can see the evidence and are not blinded by the hope that the government wouldn't do this. there is a case going through congress it will pass it has the votes to re investigate this hole matter. we will find the truth. NIST has lied the government has lied and many other departments dealing with this day they have been caught and admitted it and retracted there statements many times about that day because people investigated this for themselves and they had to change there story. because they were caught lying or or doctoring paperwork to match there story.

and still no explanation for building 7 "weird"

[smokethedays]

well i have been on the bench to long...

Fvck the nation of islam, fvck all muslims. every attack on the us in the last 10 years has been from a fcking muslim.
we have had this fight a thousand times on here.

the main backer of this fvking mosque has said time and time again america is responsible for 9-11....for are ways.
fck this guy, they can have fun finding a construction company to build the fvking thing.
then i hope it fvking burns down.

and for the reference of the KKK, what a fvking joke.
no excuse for them sorry fvcks either, but what a stupid comparison.

if this post offended anyone, well its my views, i guess u can call me ignorant..

Just wow

[Aussiebb]

I don't think our government is smart enough to pull it off.

So if you think america didnt pull it off, so you think a poor nation like afghanistan, one of the poorest country in the world, with hand made weapons, with hunger, poverty, no infrastructure, no army etc pulled 911 off?

Can you imagine this, the afghans just finished the war with the russians, the country is ruined, dead ppl everywhere, people homeless etc, they all of a sudden turn around and say, **** this, lets bomb america and bring there wrath onto us. Why would they do that? They liberatee there country from the russians, they had no reason to attack america.

Hence since the controlled demo of the building and no plane hitting the pentagon, its impossible or impractible that the muslims had any involvement in sept 11

[BgMc31]

it does not matter that you people do not support the truth that is trying to be told. but just to let you know how big this really is. over half of the US thats 150 million people believe and support this. because they can see the evidence and are not blinded by the hope that the government wouldn't do this. there is a case going through congress it will pass it has the votes to re investigate this hole matter. we will find the truth. NIST has lied the government has lied and many other departments dealing with this day they have been caught and admitted it and retracted there statements many times about that day because people investigated this for themselves and they had to change there story. because they were caught lying or or doctoring paperwork to match there story.

and still no explanation for building 7 "weird"

It amazes me, conspiracy guy (and yes I will continue to call you this), that you diminish everyone else's proof and continue to ask for more. You are more than welcome to your beliefs, no matter how misguided. But to claim (because you've done 'months' of research) it to be the truth. Your supposed evidence is no more convincing to me than mine is to you.

And your notion that 150 million Americans believe the same bullshit of you is completely asinine. Please provide peer reviewed proof of that assumption please.

[BgMc31]

So if you think america didnt pull it off, so you think a poor nation like afghanistan, one of the poorest country in the world, with hand made weapons, with hunger, poverty, no infrastructure, no army etc pulled 911 off?

Can you imagine this, the afghans just finished the war with the russians, the country is ruined, dead ppl everywhere, people homeless etc, they all of a sudden turn around and say, **** this, lets bomb america and bring there wrath onto us. Why would they do that? They liberatee there country from the russians, they had no reason to attack america.

Hence since the controlled demo of the building and no plane hitting the pentagon, its impossible or impractible that the muslims had any involvement in sept 11

No one said Afghnistan pulled off 9/11. Al Queda is blamed for 9/11. Al Queda is backed by multi billionaires, backed by oil money (Saudi Arabia).

[DSM4Life]

So if you think america didnt pull it off, so you think a poor nation like afghanistan, one of the poorest country in the world, with hand made weapons, with hunger, poverty, no infrastructure, no army etc pulled 911 off?

Can you imagine this, the afghans just finished the war with the russians, the country is ruined, dead ppl everywhere, people homeless etc, they all of a sudden turn around and say, **** this, lets bomb america and bring there wrath onto us. Why would they do that? They liberatee there country from the russians, they had no reason to attack america.

Hence since the controlled demo of the building and no plane hitting the pentagon, its impossible or impractible that the muslims had any involvement in sept 11

Yes I do.

[zabster151]

proof is there if you guys choose to not see it thats fine, the reason i started talking about this was to inform people of really interesting evidence in this matter. but if no body wants to know all good ill stop.

I do not have all the poll information to back how many actual people believe 9/11 was an inside job. but through out my research when they ask people state to state they are skeptical of why a building fell when no plane hit it. how there are so many connection to oil companies insurance comp big corporations, funding from all directions it has led to the collapse of the US economy and we can all see that today. we spend pretty much all the money we make as a country on military. i understand having military and i want a good one but at what cost to or economy. remember what happed to Russia when they spent this much money on military trying to fight all those countries. led to a very pore society and i am not a conspiracy guy i just have allot of interest in finding the truth to this matter. "what is a conspiracy guy someone who questions things and does not believe what he is told" then yes i am









building 7 ?

[Aussiebb]

No one said Afghnistan pulled off 9/11. Al Queda is blamed for 9/11. Al Queda is backed by multi billionaires, backed by oil money (Saudi Arabia).

Your right man, i must be wrong.Thats why there was no arab or muslim names on any flight lists, that some of the hijackers are still alive, that these muslims where so extremist and hated america they were seen in night clubs days before sept 11, then expecting to get there 72 virgins in heaven.

[BgMc31]

Your right man, i must be wrong.Thats why there was no arab or muslim names on any flight lists, that some of the hijackers are still alive, that these muslims where so extremist and hated america they were seen in night clubs days before sept 11, then expecting to get there 72 virgins in heaven.

I was merely responding on your post stating we went to war with Afganistan like Russia. When in turn we aren't at war with Afganistan but with extremists who train in Afganistan, Waristan, and Pakistan. What are you going on about?

[BgMc31]

proof is there if you guys choose to not see it thats fine, the reason i started talking about this was to inform people of really interesting evidence in this matter. but if no body wants to know all good ill stop.

I do not have all the poll information to back how many actual people believe 9/11 was an inside job. but through out my research when they ask people state to state they are skeptical of why a building fell when no plane hit it. how there are so many connection to oil companies insurance comp big corporations, funding from all directions it has led to the collapse of the US economy and we can all see that today. we spend pretty much all the money we make as a country on military. i understand having military and i want a good one but at what cost to or economy. remember what happed to Russia when they spent this much money on military trying to fight all those countries. led to a very pore society and i am not a conspiracy guy i just have allot of interest in finding the truth to this matter. "what is a conspiracy guy someone who questions things and does not believe what he is told" then yes i am









building 7 ?

Where's the proof? Who was asking these questions state to state? And building 7? I already provided a link to a theory that contradicts your's. You just choose not to believe it...

[zabster151]

all over local news and news papers nation wide the question has been asked research it your self you don't believe me anyway.

still no explanation for building 7. All you do is nit pick
i love it

[BgMc31]

all over local news and news papers nation wide the question has been asked research it your self you don't believe me anyway.

still no explanation for building 7. All you do is nit pick
i love it

Which news outlets? Which newspapers? C'mon, Mr. Research. And I didn't nit pick. You asked for proof of the contrary and I provided peer reviewed proof to contradict your allegations. The people who wrote the article I provided have just as much credibility as the one's you refer to as your proof. How is that nit picking?

[zabster151]

ae911truth.org are the people and enginers who built the buildings

[Flagg]

I don't think our government is smart enough to pull it off.

I know Bush is dumb, but thats nothing to say Cheney or Rumsfeld weren't.

I'm not hugely into conspiracy theories. I believe Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon and I believe that the Holocaust really happened.

But something about 911 really stinks. There are too many variables to suggest that it was purely a terrorist attack. How does a plane get close enough to hit the Pentagon without getting shot down, and how come there was no plane wreckage? How does building 7 collapse on it's own.

It's good to question these things. Too much of the population is fed a diet of media fear and Pop Idol, because the Government doesn't like people that think.

[zabster151]

Which news outlets? Which newspapers? C'mon, Mr. Research. And I didn't nit pick. You asked for proof of the contrary and I provided peer reviewed proof to contradict your allegations. The people who wrote the article I provided have just as much credibility as the one's you refer to as your proof. How is that nit picking?

Mr. reasearch here. so you may not be aware but there is huge shift in society going on and most people don't by the bull there selling any more. the news outlets i am talking about are local and major station they both have ran polls asking Americans what they think really happed that day. and most polls/Internet polls lead in the direction of people really think something els happened
and no i am not going to find you a link to every poll in America its called "Google" try it.







building 7 anyone? anyone ?

[BgMc31]

Mr. reasearch here. so you may not be aware but there is huge shift in society going on and most people don't by the bull there selling any more. the news outlets i am talking about are local and major station they both have ran polls asking Americans what they think really happed that day. and most polls/Internet polls lead in the direction of people really think something els happened
and no i am not going to find you a link to every poll in America its called "Google" try it.







building 7 anyone? anyone ?

I'm not going to do your research for you. You made the accusation/claim, now you back it up. What news media? What news outlets? What polls are you referring to? And using one website for you basis of truth isn't doing research.

Building 7? I already provided proof, now here's more?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/9-11-...-fire-and-heat

[zabster151]

I'm not going to do your research for you. You made the accusation/claim, now you back it up. What news media? every loacal news station in every state or news paper What news outlets? cnn fox abc nbc all major statons have touched on this subject and have asked there listers s%$t even radio radio stations have asked this question its not a secret What polls are you referring to? they have all ran polls And using one website for you basis of truth isn't doing research. http://ae911truth.org/ is the best one to show you on this topic
but there is http://www.prisonplanet.com/ http://maxkeiser.com/



i can tell you do not know much about what is going on because you keep referring back to the polls i talked about yes they are probably exaggerated and i am probably wrong about the numbers. no problem with me because there is a movement and the people are aware and more people are seeing the truth every day and there are to many teachers ,scientist, engineers and Architects who know this is all wrong the to many red flags the math the lies stock markets showed signs

Building 7? I already provided proof, now here's more? NIST, really have you been reading anything i post NIST retracted there final findings numerous times because they were caught for lying about free fall speed

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/9-11-...-fire-and-heat

Fires in the 47-story office tower at the edge of the World Trade Center site undermined floor beams and critical structural columns, federal investigators concluded Thursday, as they attempted to curb still-rampant speculation that explosives or fuel fires were responsible for the building’s collapse of Sept. 11, 2001. you believe that lol try again

let me ask you this if i stood at the top of building 1 and a plane hit building 2 and when building 2 started to fall and i dropped a bowling ball of building 1 at the exact second what would hit the ground first building or the bowling ball ?

[zabster151]

Unusual Trading in Stock Options Prior to 9/11: Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 Put Options
June 16, 2010

On September 19, 2001, CBS reported:
Sources tell CBS News that the afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market.

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

On September 29, 2001, the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out:

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

"This smells real bad."
***

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

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

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

***

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

On October 19, 2001, the Chronicle wrote:

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

***
FMR Corp. spokeswoman Anne Crowley, said her firm -- which owns the giant Fidelity family of mutual funds in Boston -- has already provided "account and transaction" information to investigators, and had no objection to the new procedures announced yesterday. Crowley declined to describe the nature of the information previously shared with the government.
So the effort to track down the source of the puts was certainly quite substantial.

What were the results of the investigation?

Apparently, we'll never know.

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

The SEC responded:

We have been advised that the potentially responsive records have been destroyed.
If the SEC had responded by producing documents showing that the pre-9/11 put options had an innocent explanation (such as a hedge made by a smaller airline), that would be udnerstandable.

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

But destroyed? Why?

Not the First Time

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

I wrote in March:
As I pointed out in 2007:

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

The official 9/11 Commission Report states:

Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot. Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses-sworn enemies of the United States-is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting.
In other words, the 9/11 Commissioners were not allowed to speak with the detainees, or even their interrogators. Instead, they got their information third-hand.

The Commission didn't really trust the interrogation testimony. For example, one of the primary architects of the 9/11 Commission Report, Ernest May, said in May 2005:

We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources.
As I noted last May:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

Coleman goes on to say:

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CIA then destroyed the tapes.

Specifically, the New York Times confirms that the government swore that it had turned over all of the relevant material regarding the statements of the people being interrogated:
“The commission did formally request material of this kind from all relevant agencies, and the commission was assured that we had received all the material responsive to our request,” said Philip D. Zelikow, who served as executive director of the Sept. 11 commission ....
“No tapes were acknowledged or turned over, nor was the commission provided with any transcript prepared from recordings,” he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fact that the CIA instead destroyed the videos shows that it has something to hide.
Trying to Create a False Linkage?

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

As I wrote last May:

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

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

Indeed, the Senate Armed Services Committee found that the U.S. used torture techniques specifically aimed at extracting false confessions (and see this).

And as Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times:

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

• Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured

• At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being "tortured."

• One of the Commission's main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ

• The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves

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

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

***
The above-linked NBC news report quotes a couple of legal experts to this effect:
Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, says he is "shocked" that the Commission never asked about extreme interrogation measures.

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

Karen Greenberg, director of the Center for Law and Security at New York University’s School of Law, put it this way: "[I]t should have relied on sources not tainted. It calls into question how we were willing to use these interrogations to construct the narrative."
The interrogations were "used" to "construct the narrative" which the 9/11 Commission decided to use.

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

***
As constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley stated:

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

Other Obstructions of Justice

[Other examples of obstructions of justice include the following:]
• The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Joint Inquiry of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees into 9/11 said that government "minders" obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses

• The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements

• The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times

• Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House. As the New York Times notes:

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

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

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

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

Indeed, the 9/11 Commissioners themselves are disturbed:
• The Commission's co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation"

• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

• 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

• 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up"

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

[zabster151]

The Question of the Day is ....

Will the Dollar fall or not?
I know you're interested in finance.


































TO MY FINANCIALLY FOCUSED FRIENDS



The Key to Financial Survival is to be a Tight Ass!

[zaggahamma]

The Question of the Day is ....

Will the Dollar fall or not?
I know you're interested in finance.































TO MY FINANCIALLY FOCUSED FRIENDS



The Key to Financial Survival is to be a Tight Ass!

i think another inside job will make the dollar fall

[stevey_6t9]

fuk zabster you wont let it rest...

once again the theory will never be proven correct, so it remains a 'theory' and so far its not an accepted one by the world.

if it was proven, you living in america and all, your country would collapse in riots, the dollar would collapse, the government will be over throw and you wud have another civil war. lets hope it stays a theory

[warchild]

after reading the nyfd fire cheifs report i believe the building did fall from the plane attacks. http://www.debunking911.c o m