Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
9/11 Attacks
Options
Comments
-
Failed do you even know what Hamiltion's position on the 911 Commission Report was
Reasonably Well does not sound like a failure.
Our second task was to make recommendations; thus far, about half of our recommendations have been enacted into law, the other half have not been enacted. So we've got a ways to go. In a quantitative sense, we’ve had about 50% success there. In a qualitative sense, you could judge it many different ways. But we still have some very important recommendations that we think have not yet been enacted that should be.John Farmer, senior counsel to the Commission stated that the Commission "discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue." Farmer continues: "At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened...The (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public."[20] Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: "We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth."[21]
Lies = failure0 -
-
Replace the name of Hamilton with Ahern on that piece of spin and you'll kinda get what I think of it.
I mean look at this series of answers, are you saying you are happy with that?
Solomon: Where there any notion there was... The NTSB recently released the flight path of United Flight 93 in the past two weeks. One of the interesting things that that showed was, during the flight path, and I think the flight path of that, I think that plane crashed, according to the Report, at 10:03 am.
And one of the interesting things it showed - this is just recently declassified - that it flew well over 10,000 feet - 30,000, 40,000 feet - from about 9:30 onward. Now, a lot of the cell phone calls that were made from that plane, that ended up being in the movie, were from, you know, people phoning from the plane. And one allegation that's recently come out since the release of that is: cell phones don’t work above 10,000 feet, so how could people get on their cell phone on a plane and phone their relatives?
Hamilton: I’m no expert on that. I’ve been told cell phones work - sometimes - above 10,000 feet, and as high as 30,000 feet. So it may have been that some of the calls went through and some didn’t, I just don’t know.
Solomon: Let me ask you another thing. I'm just asking because, you know, in the wake of this, there's lots of these questions.
Hamilton: There surely are.
Solomon: The Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, which is about 20 odd miles away from New York, they released a report on seismic data coming from Manhattan on that day. And they released a spike in seismic data at 8:46:26, and they thought that was the moment of impact of the plane on the first World Trade Center, of American Airlines 11. But the plane didn’t hit until 8:46:40, and there are several of the same kind of early seismic spikes for the second flight. I guess the question is: how do we explain those discrepancies? When the public looks at that, how can we explain that kind of thing?
Hamilton: I haven’t seen that report. I don’t know the answer to your question. They didn’t come forward with that evidence while we were at the Commission - so far as I know. Now, staff filtered a lot of these things, so not necessarily would I know. I don't know what happened with regard to the.... What did they conclude? I don't know what they concluded.
Solomon: They had no conclusion; the evidence is sitting out there. You write about, in Chapter 12 of the book - and again it's one of those allegations that have come up - about who had foreknowledge of it? One piece of evidence that many critics have said is: 'well, there is lots of 'puts' - which is a form of financial stock trading. In other words, people are buying up stock, hoping that the airline stock would plunge, and there was an unusually large number of puts on American Airlines and United stock, and therefore people profited from this. What did you make of that theory?
Hamilton: That’s one we did investigate. We looked at that pretty carefully, and all I can indicate at this point is that we do not think anybody profited from manipulation of airline stock prior to 9/11, there’s no evidence of that, I don't think.
Solomon: Even though there’s unusual, high...
Hamilton: That’s correct. It’s not unusual in the stock market to have a lot of activity in a given stock, or industry, as you did here. The question is: did any of them have foreknowledge and profit from it? We don’t think so; we looked at it pretty carefully.
Solomon: There’s also allegations that the Pakistani Secret Service, called the ISI, the head of which met here in the United States right before 9/11, and there’s some allegations and evidence to show that they paid Mohammed Atta $100,000. The reason this is important is: who funded the people who conducted the attacks, the terrorist attacks? What did the Commission make of payment from the ISI to Mohammed Atta of $100,000?
Hamilton: I don’t know anything about it.
Solomon: Was there any connection between.. Did the Commission investigate any connection between ISI, Pakistani intelligence, and..
Hamilton: They may have; I do not recall us writing anything about it in the report. We may have but I don’t recall it. We did estimate that Osama bin Laden spent about $500,000 for the 9/11 attacks. We did not identify all the sources of that money.
Solomon: And how it got to the …
Hamilton: That's right, you simply can’t trace it, so far as I know, because $500,000 in international financial markets is not even a blip on the radar screen. So we do not know precisely where that money came from.
Solomon: Questions about foreknowledge, especially as to when Vice President Dick Cheney knew when he went down to the protective bunker: there was some suggestion that the Secretary of Transport Mineta testified in front of the Commission that he in fact talked to Dick Cheney at 9:20 am. Cheney claims he hadn’t been there.. gotten down there until close to 10 am. That was eventually omitted from the final report,. Can you tell us a bit about about what Secretary of Transport Mineta told the Commission about where Dick Cheney was prior to 10 am?
Hamilton: I do not recall.0 -
You do realise that the NORAD tapes have been released and made open to the public, and clearly show NORAD sending interceptors after the planes?
You asked if there was reason for a new investigation. Here are 7 good reasons.1. There were repeated misstatements from the Pentagon
2. There were repeated misstatements from the FAA
3. There were repeated misstatements from the NORAD
4. Chair commissioners Keane and Hamilton said it was set up to fail
5. John Farmer, senior counsel to the Commission stated that the Commission discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue.
6. John Farmer: At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened.
7. Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: "We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth.
Any one of these reasons are good enough to warrant a new investigation.
But of course, you can't handle it.
For once, admit when you're wrong0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »Replace the name of Hamilton with Ahern on that piece of spin and you'll kinda get what I think of it.
I mean look at this series of answers, are you saying you are happy with that?
The Commission issued it's report in 2004. Since then alot more information has come to light.
Would you care to pick one of the questions put to Hamilton. Do you have issue with one of those points?0 -
Advertisement
-
The Commission issued it's report in 2004. Since then alot more information has come to light.
Would you care to pick one of the questions put to Hamilton. Do you have issue with one of those points?
No, I wouldn't.
It's the spin, it's the appalling spin, nearly 3000 people died and he is trying to equate loony Cters with those who have fundamental questions about how they gathered and assessed the information. He, like you just can't see it.
That is what is shocking. I am sure George and the boys were happy with him.0 -
You asked if there was reason for a new investigation. Here are 7 good reasons.
Any one of these reasons are good enough to warrant a new investigation.
But of course, you can't handle it.
For once, admit when you're wrong
Lets take a deep breath.1. There were repeated misstatements from the Pentagon
2. There were repeated misstatements from the FAA
3. There were repeated misstatements from the NORAD
4. Chair commissioners Keane and Hamilton said it was set up to fail
5. John Farmer, senior counsel to the Commission stated that the Commission discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue.
6. John Farmer: At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened.
7. Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: "We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth.
1.-4 Misstatements doesn't mean lies. It can mean being incorrect or not aware of the facts.
5. Set up to fail doesn't mean it did fail.
6. I'll have to look up that quote.
7. As mentioned you can listen to the NORAD tapes.It's a story that was intentionally obscured, some members of the 9/11 commission believe, by military higher-ups and members of the Bush administration who spoke to the press, and later the commission itself, in order to downplay the extent of the confusion and miscommunication flying through the ranks of the government. The truth, however, is all on tape.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608
Some NORAD officials lied to cover up the confusion in NORAD that day. But it's clear as day on the tapes that NORAD was doing everything in it's power that day to intercept the hijackings.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »No, I wouldn't.
Why not?It's the spin, it's the appalling spin, nearly 3000 people died and he is trying to equate loony Cters with those who have fundamental questions about how they gathered and assessed the information. He, like you just can't see it.
That is what is shocking. I am sure George and the boys were happy with him.
So when challenged to discuss 911 on the merits of the facts you chose to run away.0 -
Why not?
So when challenged to discuss 911 on the merits of the facts you chose to run away.
You won't take on board any criticism of the Report. In fact Hamilton took on board more criticism than you. How can we challenge it if all we are hearing is 'the facts are in the report'?
My point is there are facts missing from the final report. Which is something which Hamilton and I agree on btw. What we have a difference of opinion about, is whether that is because of oversight or imcompetence or level of importance. If Hamilton or you had any real interest in the truth you too would see the absolute need of a new inquiry. But some day all the facts will be considered, just like Saville.0 -
The difference between the the circumstances is that the families of victims of the attacks aren't demanding anew inquiry into 911.
Wrong!NEW YORK CITY, NY (Oct. 26, 2004)(Updated Sep. 11, 2009) - An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and "consciously failed to act," with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=200410260930596330 -
Advertisement
-
Happyman42 wrote: »You won't take on board any criticism of the Report.
Yes I will I'm waiting for you to offer something valid.In fact Hamilton took on board more criticism than you. How can we challenge it if all we are hearing is 'the facts are in the report'?
My point is there are facts missing from the final report. Which is something which Hamilton and I agree on btw. What we have a difference of opinion about, is whether that is because of oversight or imcompetence or level of importance. If Hamilton or you had any real interest in the truth you too would see the absolute need of a new inquiry. But some day all the facts will be considered, just like Saville.
No see the report isn't everything both the NIST report into WTC7 and WTC took years longer than the 9/11 commission report, and corrected some misconceptions. We're in a far better position today to answer some of those unanswered questions put to him.0 -
[QUOTE
6. I'll have to look up that quote.
[/QUOTE]
http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0151013764
product decription0 -
Joshua Jones wrote: »
Do you really want me to go through how everything on that list has been brought up and demolished?
Pentagon Missile batteries for fecks sake.0 -
Do you really want me to go through how everything on that list has been brought up and demolished?
Pentagon Missile batteries for fecks sake.
You said the families weren't asking for a new inquiry, I proved to you that they were. I quoted the important part, you ASSUMED that I agreed with the whole page. Nice way to try and dismiss your obvious fail. Do you admit that some families of 911 victims have requested a new inquiry?.0 -
Joshua Jones wrote: »You said the families weren't asking for a new inquiry, I proved to you that they were. I quoted the important part, you ASSUMED that I agreed with the whole page. Nice way to try and dismiss your obvious fail.
Please don't link to stuff you don't agree with then. It's an easy assumption to makeDo you admit that some families of 911 victims have requested a new inquiry?.
A poor turn of phrase. A better turn of phrase would be 6 years ago, a handful of families wanted a new investigation.0 -
-
A little light relief that has a point.
I think Diogenes has been caught on camera debunking those with genuine questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT5sJiFs35U&feature=player_embedded
Remember what I said, 'questions' (nobody that signed that letter said they BELIEVED- they just called for an inquiry) Note also how he says absolutely nothing to answer their Questions but prefers instead, to question their right to ask for those things.
Fairly typical of those who deny those who want unequivocal truth. To want an inquiry is not the same thing as saying you 'believe'
Note also how he says the words 'Self Admitted Commuinist'-'Activist'-'Self A Admitted-Progressive'
:D:D Boy does he have a few Boogeymen! 0 -
Yup, congrats happyman
Bad luck diogenes, you troll.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Yup, congrats happyman
Bad luck diogenes, you troll.
Soveriegn, you've been infracted for calling another user a troll. You edited this post to again specifically name who you are calling a troll, to me is essentially doing it again. It shows that you either haven't understood what you did wrong, or you know what you did was wrong and have decided to do it again. Either way, you can take a week off to think about it0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »A little light relief that has a point.
I think Diogenes has been caught on camera debunking those with genuine questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT5sJiFs35U&feature=player_embedded
Remember what I said, 'questions' (nobody that signed that letter said they BELIEVED- they just called for an inquiry) Note also how he says absolutely nothing to answer their Questions but prefers instead, to question their right to ask for those things.
Fairly typical of those who deny those who want unequivocal truth. To want an inquiry is not the same thing as saying you 'believe'
Which is nice n all, and I don't reject that they want an inquiry. However there is evidence that answers their requests. Neither you or I can facility an inquiry we can however discuss the facts that available to us in 2010 as to whether we feel the arguments are worthy of merit.
You've engaged in a semantic argument about the Saville inquiry to avoid discussing the merits of the facts and the claims of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Now neither one of us are capable of susequestion of witnesses. So we mus discuss the merits of each arguments available in the public domain. You have failed to do this.0 -
So far you've insisted they investigate alternative reasons as to how the passport arrived in New York. If they approached every minor piece of evidence, and tried to consider every conceivable hypothesis they'd be going for years.
The Saville Inquiry took 12 years to investigate 26 deaths. How much longer would the investigation of 3,000 deaths.
The first mention of Saville on here.^
that led to various forms of the question below and you still haven't answered it.
One inadequate, biased and a cover-up and the other exhaustive, honest and accepted. Is the 9-11 report accepted in the same way....no....why?
Hoist by your own petard?.....Obviously.0 -
Which is nice n all, and I don't reject that they want an inquiry. However there is evidence that answers their requests. Neither you or I can facility an inquiry we can however discuss the facts that available to us in 2010 as to whether we feel the arguments are worthy of merit.
How can anybody discuss the failings of the report when the only answer we get is 'the facts are all in the report'?0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »How can anybody discuss the failings of the report when the only answer we get is 'the facts are all in the report'?
I know this is an oldish thread ...was just reading through it and it is topical again after bin Ladens death...But for the OP and others who believe the theory that it was 19 hi-jackers...They have put some kind of proof debunking most of what the so called CTs have argued. Except for the BBC footage of the WT7 Still standing behind the reporter as the reporter was commentating that the building had actually come down. I think this in itself shows people knew the building was coming down and if they did now it was coming down then it had to be controlled. This is the biggest failure on the side of the 19 terrorists parts...and now we have the bin laden was shot whilst armed and hidding behind his wife which now contradicts the white house official statement that he was unarmed and shot in the head...There was no way Bin Laden was going to be arrested and taken alive0 -
fliball123 wrote: »I know this is an oldish thread ...was just reading through it and it is topical again after bin Ladens death...But for the OP and others who believe the theory that it was 19 hi-jackers...They have put some kind of proof debunking most of what the so called CTs have argued. Except for the BBC footage of the WT7 Still standing behind the reporter as the reporter was commentating that the building had actually come down. I think this in itself shows people knew the building was coming down and if they did now it was coming down then it had to be controlled.
Completely the opposite. The building was on fire, and in serious danger of collapse. Reports of the buildings instability from fire fighters, came throughout the dayAt approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.
http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows:
1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.
Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.
Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txtBut they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.webcitation.org/5IuRwM61d
Throughout the day reports surfaced that WTC 7 was about to collapse, because the building was on fire, and had huge chunks of it's structure missing!
Incidently what's the alternative conspiracy theory? That the NWO had a script for the day's events and the BBC jumped the gun?
Exactly how many people do you suppose are in on this conspiracy theory!This is the biggest failure
Snort.on the side of the 19 terrorists parts...and now we have the bin laden was shot whilst armed and hidding behind his wife which now contradicts the white house official statement that he was unarmed and shot in the head...There was no way Bin Laden was going to be arrested and taken alive
And this is relevant to Bin Laden how?0 -
On September 11, 2001 the definition of National Security changed for most U.S. citizens. For an entire postwar generation, “National Security” meant protection from nuclear attack. On that day, Americans redefined that threat.
On September 11, 2001 three hijacked airliners hit three separate buildings with such precision and skill that many observers believe those flights were controlled by something other than the poorly trained hijackers in the cockpits.
This report contends that not only were the buildings targets, but that specific offices within each building were the designated targets. These offices unknowingly held information which if exposed, subsequently would expose a national security secret of unimaginable magnitude. Protecting that secret was the motivation for the September 11th attacks. This report is about that national security secret: its origins and impact. The intent of the report is to provide a context for understanding the events of September 11th rather than to define exactly what happened that day.
Initially, it is difficult to see a pattern to the destruction of September 11th other than the total destruction of the World Trade Center, a segment of the Pentagon, four commercial aircraft and the loss of 2,993 lives. However, if
the perceived objective of the attack is re-defined from its commonly suggested ‘symbolic’ designation as either ‘a terrorist attack’ or a ‘new Pearl Harbor,’ and one begins by looking at it as purely a crime with specific objectives (as opposed to a political action), there is a compelling logic to the pattern of destruction.
This article provides research into the early claims by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz that the September 11th attacks were meant as a cover-up for financial crimes being investigated by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), whose offices in the Pentagon were destroyed on September 11th. After six years of research, this report presents corroborating evidence which supports their claims, and proposes a new rationale for the September 11th attacks. In doing so, many of the anomalies – or inconvenient facts surrounding this event - take on a meaning that is consistent with the claims of Eastman et al.
The hypothesis of this report is: the attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which ‘unknown’ western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation. In doing so, the attacks were justified under the cardinal rule of intelligence: “protect your resources” and consistent with a modus operandi of sacrificing lives for a greater cause.
The case for detailed targeting of the attacks begins with analysis of the attack on the Pentagon. After one concludes that the targeting of the ONI office in the Pentagon was not random – and that information is presented later – one then must ask: is it possible that the planes that hit the World Trade Center, and the bombs reported by various witnesses to have been set off inside the buildings 1, 6 and 7 and the basement of the Towers, were deliberately located to support the execution of a crime of mind-boggling proportions? In considering that question, a pattern emerges. For the crimes alleged by Eastman, Flocco, Durham and Schwarz to be successful, the vault in the basement of the World Trade Center, and its contents - less than a billion in gold, but hundreds of billions of dollars of government securities - had to be destroyed. A critical mass of brokers from the major government security brokerages in the Twin Towers had to be eliminated to create chaos in the government securities market.
A situation needed to be created wherein $240 billion dollars of covert securities could be electronically “cleared” without anyone asking questions- which happened when the Federal Reserve declared an emergency and invoked its “emergency powers.” that very afternoon. The ongoing Federal investigations into the crimes funded by those securities needed to be ended or disrupted by destroying evidence in Buildings 6, 7 and 1. Finally, one has to understand and demonstrate the inconceivable: that $240 billion in covert, and possibly illegal government funding could have been and were created in September of 1991.
Filling in the last piece of the puzzle requires understanding 50 years of history of key financial organizations in the United States, understanding how U.S. Intelligence became a key source of their off-balance sheet accounts, and why this was sanctioned by every President since Truman. With that, a pattern of motivation is defined which allows government leaders and intelligence operatives to ‘rationalize’ a decision to cause the death 3,000 citizens.
--Snippets from the only report written on 9/11 that i believe in.0 -
On September 11, 2001 the definition of National Security changed for most U.S. citizens. For an entire postwar generation, “National Security” meant protection from nuclear attack. On that day, Americans redefined that threat.
On September 11, 2001 three hijacked airliners hit three separate buildings with such precision and skill that many observers believe those flights were controlled by something other than the poorly trained hijackers in the cockpits.
They hit two of the largest skyscrapers in the world, and the largest office building in the world.
All three of the hijackers had pilot licences and several had commercial licences.This report contends that not only were the buildings targets, but that specific offices within each building were the designated targets. These offices unknowingly held information which if exposed, subsequently would expose a national security secret of unimaginable magnitude. Protecting that secret was the motivation for the September 11th attacks. This report is about that national security secret: its origins and impact. The intent of the report is to provide a context for understanding the events of September 11th rather than to define exactly what happened that day.
Wait they killed thousands of people and crashed planes into buildings because they didn't have a shredder?Initially, it is difficult to see a pattern to the destruction of September 11th other than the total destruction of the World Trade Center, a segment of the Pentagon, four commercial aircraft and the loss of 2,993 lives. However, if
the perceived objective of the attack is re-defined from its commonly suggested ‘symbolic’ designation as either ‘a terrorist attack’ or a ‘new Pearl Harbor,’ and one begins by looking at it as purely a crime with specific objectives (as opposed to a political action), there is a compelling logic to the pattern of destruction.
Terrorists attacking iconic American landmarks is another very plausible explanation.This article provides research into the early claims by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz that the September 11th attacks were meant as a cover-up for financial crimes being investigated by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), whose offices in the Pentagon were destroyed on September 11th. After six years of research, this report presents corroborating evidence which supports their claims, and proposes a new rationale for the September 11th attacks. In doing so, many of the anomalies – or inconvenient facts surrounding this event - take on a meaning that is consistent with the claims of Eastman et al.
Again, seriously, nothing a shredder couldn't sort out?The hypothesis of this report is: the attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which ‘unknown’ western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation. In doing so, the attacks were justified under the cardinal rule of intelligence: “protect your resources” and consistent with a modus operandi of sacrificing lives for a greater cause.
Um source?The case for detailed targeting of the attacks begins with analysis of the attack on the Pentagon. After one concludes that the targeting of the ONI office in the Pentagon was not random – and that information is presented later – one then must ask: is it possible that the planes that hit the World Trade Center, and the bombs reported by various witnesses to have been set off inside the buildings 1, 6 and 7 and the basement of the Towers, were deliberately located to support the execution of a crime of mind-boggling proportions? In considering that question, a pattern emerges. For the crimes alleged by Eastman, Flocco, Durham and Schwarz to be successful, the vault in the basement of the World Trade Center, and its contents - less than a billion in gold, but hundreds of billions of dollars of government securities - had to be destroyed. A critical mass of brokers from the major government security brokerages in the Twin Towers had to be eliminated to create chaos in the government securities market.
And the stockmarkets collapsed after the attack?A situation needed to be created wherein $240 billion dollars of covert securities could be electronically “cleared” without anyone asking questions- which happened when the Federal Reserve declared an emergency and invoked its “emergency powers.” that very afternoon. The ongoing Federal investigations into the crimes funded by those securities needed to be ended or disrupted by destroying evidence in Buildings 6, 7 and 1. Finally, one has to understand and demonstrate the inconceivable: that $240 billion in covert, and possibly illegal government funding could have been and were created in September of 1991.
So they destroyed three building and killed 3,000 people to cover up the missing $240 billion.
I'm pretty much that figure is dwarfed by the amounts poured into financial institutions in the past three years.
To suggest that they'd need a 9/11 style attack for that kind of financial transaction.Filling in the last piece of the puzzle requires understanding 50 years of history of key financial organizations in the United States, understanding how U.S. Intelligence became a key source of their off-balance sheet accounts, and why this was sanctioned by every President since Truman. With that, a pattern of motivation is defined which allows government leaders and intelligence operatives to ‘rationalize’ a decision to cause the death 3,000 citizens.
--Snippets from the only report written on 9/11 that i believe in.
Again the last three years and the trillions spent in the the financial meltdown demonstrations this is nonsense.0 -
I appreciate your reply DiOGenes but i think you are a bit too quick with jumping to very simple explanations and conclusions. It is probably best if you read the full report which is 59 pages and which includes sources at the end.
I don't want to fight every single point you make over the next few days when most are answered in great detail in the report.
If you are seriously interested in this topic, which i think you are then please take some time to read the full report here:
http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Collateral_Damage_911.pdf0 -
Advertisement
-
I appreciate your reply DiOGenes but i think you are a bit too quick with jumping to very simple explanations and conclusions. It is probably best if you read the full report which is 59 pages and which includes sources at the end.
I don't want to fight every single point you make over the next few days when most are answered in great detail in the report.
If you are seriously interested in this topic, which i think you are then please take some time to read the full report here:
http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Collateral_Damage_911.pdf
Funny that's the second time Shamir has come up today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-israel-shamir-russia-scandinavia
A disturbing anti semite and holocaust denier.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement