Mark Stapleton

First class post, David.

Let's hope Len gives some thought to the points you made.

Stop hiding underwater and research his posts on the site for yourself. Or read this by others who catch on more quickly.....

Peter,

I agree with you about the difficulties involved in conducting debates with marine life.

A microcosm of the polarity in society today. But I just love being given orders to produce more proofs!....aren't we all free to offer what we want?....Pardon me for being passionate about saving the planet from the impending fascism.....

By the way Mark did you catch this great post by David G.?! A real on target classic.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=116467

Peter,

I just read it--missed it last night. I agree it's a classic, David absolutely nailed the issue.

At least Len, you have it right about the Ponzi scheme. Ponzi scheme is, in fact, the only accurate definition of banking. A former chairman of a major British bank and former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, once said on TV that banking is a “confidence trick” – and that is about as true as it gets.

Gary, for a nip of the Leprachaun poteen I will do almost anything (not proud, me). Thus:

Personally, I wouldn’t spend any time on the Fed’s daily activities of providing or soaking up liquidity in the financial markets. It’s just a way of making money work for everyone (as an interest earning asset). What they call keeping an “orderly market”.

On drugs, the figures I quoted ($trillion) must be well out of date by, oh, ten or fifteen years. I’m quite sure that parts of the “skim” from the drug money haul are used to finance all sorts of unpleasant activities.

I would suggest that you acquire, if you can (and if you haven’t already got it), a copy of Nick Tosches book Power on Earth about Michel Sindona. Interviewed in prison in the US and just prior being suicided with a cup of poison laced coffee, one of the most artful money launders of his time had some very revealing things to say about the international banking system. If you get the hardback version (might be the same in paperback) by Arbor House, NY, then particularly read pages 85-101. Very revealing.

It helps to remember that hot money that once zipped offshore must ultimately be repatriated in order to earn interest. Well, that was the case before the introduction of the Eurodollar market, which catered to this hot money and which no end of US corporations “tapped” with bond issues and other borrowing. But basically, the money must always come back to the fold or else the economy will ultimately collapse… as the only alternative to continually disappearing vast sums of money (taken out of circulation) is printing more and more money – which is, of course, dangerously inflationary. It is more complex than this in reality but this is it in its simplest form.

On the CUSIP I mentioned, I spent years investigating it and discussing it with some of the people involved – following a tip from a disgruntled former spook (disgruntled with good reason, too) and have quite a bit of paperwork about it. However, I’ve never written about and have no plans to do so, although it informed me during the research phase of Project Hammer and Project Hammer Reloaded (my website is still down but I am planning to get it back up soon and both these long essays are freely available on it).

Both essays are, in my view anyway, important in tracing the ways and means the financial system is co-opted for nefarious purposes. Project Hammer published the complete affidavit of Brig. Gen. Erle Cocke Jr., who then promptly died of cancer. Cocke was the Washington man behind the whole Nugan Hand Bank fiasco as detailed in Jonathan Kwitny’s Crimes of Patriots. He worked for every president down from Eisenhower up to and including Bill Clinton. The CIA denied they had any records about him, which is one of the more hilarious lies foisted on the public at large. Hammer included the use of gold plundered during WWII by the Nazis and Japanese.

Probably more than drugs, these are the assets that are used and re-used for special political purposes and covert operations.

Meanwhile, it is well known in certain circles that the first oil price hike back in 1974 (the price increased four hundred percent) was a Kissinger deal that laid the blame on OPEC. Odd that OPEC, who certainly knew what was going on and why, didn’t publicly deny it was them.

As a brief aside, no one should be deceived that Muslim nations don’t earn interest. This is a myth that is circulated. Usury is forbidden in the Koran, certainly, but there are ways around earning interest while doing exactly that -- namely the discount/A’forfait market. Happens all the time.

Back to petrol. The Shah of Iran who was an American puppet caused the 400% price hike to happen and the Saudi’s, who were also an American puppet, also went right along with it (greased by a secret US Treasury agreement negotiated by someone I once worked with when I was a relative junior).

The then Saudi oil minister, Sheikh Yamani (known in the UK at the time as “Shake your money”) came out years later saying that it was a result of manipulations by the Bilderberg Group. I have a copy of their 1973 Conference minutes/notes and, yup, their was a discussion of the price increasing by roughly 400% -- although if you read the meeting notes, you’d be hard pressed to see a smoking gun -- so artful is it done.

There has been a suggestion that the proceeds were used to offset the cost of the Vietnam war. True or not, I don’t know, but it does make sense. Curiously the US Federal Budget deficit for 1974 was $6.1 billion, down from $14.9 in 1973; $23.4 in 72 and $23.0 in 71. What this translates to may be nothing, however as Ford took over and bumped the deficit back up to an astonishing $53.2 billion in 75. Yes folks, only 32 years ago it was pocket change compared to the $9 trillion today.

Talking about the deficit, even twenty years ago, in 1986, it was still only $220.7 billion – less than a quarter of one trillion dollars, so the massive leap is comparatively recent.

As Steve has said, the UK also has a healthy deficit. In fact, I doubt you could find a creditor nation on the planet. I tried a few years ago and couldn’t find one. Every state owes money to someone else. Who is that someone else you ask? Well, I think it likely that it all matches out – by and large anyway. This illustrates how money binds everyone into debt bondage. It’s not just a third world phenomenon. All the first world nations are also heavily indebted.

Just who benefits would require someone a lot smarter than I to figure out – but I know it ain’t me!

David

PS. those who remember the disastrous and sudden collapse of the Asian tiger economies back in the mid-late 1990’s, are not generally aware that it was caused by the US hedge funds working with a nod and a wink from Uncle – and began with a bribe paid to a central bank official in Thailand. Which just goes to prove that covert warfare using finance is a very effective means of gaining ones ends.

Fascinating stuff, David.

It all sounds about right to me. How did you manage to secure a copy of the minutes of the Bilderberg Group?

Stop hiding underwater and research his posts on the site for yourself. Or read this by others who catch on more quickly.....

Peter,

I agree with you about the difficulties involved in conducting debates with marine life.

Only in America , the land of opportunity !

37 million people now live below the poverty line -- 12.9 million of those are children.

The official poverty line is an income of $19,971/yr for a family of four.

A single parent working full-time for minimum wage makes $10,712/yr.

3.9 million families had at least one member go hungry because they couldn't afford enough food.

1,600,000 jobs lost in the private sector since Dubya took office.

46.6 million people lack health coverage.

1.7 million VETERANS -- including some Iraq War Veterans -- have no health insurance.

750,000 Americans are homeless, 250,000 of them are Veterans .

Are these the "Christian" moral values of the Republican Party?

I agree they're pretty bad numbers, Duane.

The wealth inequality which exists in the US is the world's worst kept secret.

So how can a country with such dire inequality issues justify unprecedented military spending and precipitous debt? I don't know. The priorities are all wrong. The US media, over a period of several decades, has conditioned the American public into believing that they are beset with threats and enemies and all rational thought should be set aside for the greater good of God and country. It's like a permanent seige mentality. The greater good of who is never explained, of course. But it's not you.

The Us has been actuarially bankrupt for many years. You can't run a 9 trillion dollar debt (which is completely unrepayable, of course) and not be de facto bankrupt. But the secret of sailing in such waters is cash flow. So long as cash does flow the ship stays afloat. Since the vast proportion of foreign held US dollars are fed back into the US Fed system as "investments" -- by foreign central banks, then the ship can't sink. The dillemma faced by foreign central banks is how to pull their money out of the debt mountain without destroying it at the same time. Even China faces this problem.

Not to forget that back in 2000, Saddam became evil incarnate in the eyes of the US (he was anyway in my eyes, I have to say), because he began selling his oil for euros and not dollars. Others tried to copy this, Chavez in Venezuela (if memory serves) included. It was an exceedingly dangerous thing to do - although entirely understandable - because the US would never allow it.

And so the whole happy fairground ride continues to gounf round and round, up and down.

Of course, it helps to have over a trillion dollars a year in drug revenue to help things moving along. Asit also helps to have sudden price hikes in crude that generates a lot of extra bunce taxation - er, income - from around the world, namely Europe, Japan and the emerging economies of India and China. Then there are the illegal weapons sales, sometimes ripped off from military arsenal's that then need to be replaced at the taxpayers expense. And so on.

Back in the Seventies the US issued a strange and little known (unless you're in the right circles) Treasury CUSIP that was marketed mainly through overseas central banks. Dear old Blighty's Dirty Old Lady helped out on this. The purpose of this CUSIP was to hoover up all those so called "hot" dollars circulating around the world owned by, well, crooks. Nice people like Mafia boss Meyer Lansky. Imagine being a Mafia Don with bundles of illicit dollars and being approached via an arms length deniable intermediary who tells you that Uncle Sam wants your money in exchange for allocating you a bona fide Treasury Bond. Crooks jumped at the opportunity of "bleaching" their money at getting paid annual interest for the pleasure of doing so.

Did Uncle pay out on their obligation when it fell due? Did they hell...

Nice world, money.

David

Like they say, if someone owes you a little money, it's their problem. If someone owes you a lot of money, it becomes your problem.

Your post could explain the reckless behavior of the Bush Government. The US owes trillions but hey, it ain't our problem!

Cash flow might sustain the system but eventually the debt issue has to be addressed--or forgiven. Do you think the foreign banks will get tired of bailing out the US--or is that outweighed by the potential damage to the global economy should the US go under?

On the issue of illicit drugs and the fact that it props up the cash flow side of America's ongoing viability, I must adopt my sanctimonious voice and say 'think of the children'. Seriously. Think of them. If illicit drugs were decriminalised, the economic 'correction' would be severe indeed. I have read that a 10-20% increase in unemployment is not out of the ballpark. The stockmarket would bleed a deep red. Prohibition, ferociously overseen on a global scale by the US, has become an important substructure underpinning many economies throughout the world. How did the world allow itself to be bullied into signing these ridiculous conventions? How can the world still allow America to impose its will on sovereign nations for the financial gain of few at the expense of the vast majority? I guess our children will have to sort out these thorny issues.

Anyone who doubts the dire predicament of the US economy should read this short but frightening piece from Robert Freeman.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/29/3490/

I was unaware that,

1. The US borrows $2.5 billion per day 'just to keep the lights on'.

2. The US has sixty five trillion dollars in 'unfunded liabilities'---debts it has committed to pay but for which there is no identified source of funding. According to a report written for the Federal Reserve, this makes the US 'actuarially bankrupt'.

Of course, the Bush Administration has done nothing to address the issue. Instead, it spends billions on foreign adventurism and now talks about war with Iran. The legacy for America's next generation is the furthest thing from their minds--assuming they have minds at all.

I've replied to the 'side show' above on "my" thread. I was wondering if any more evidence of insider trading will be forth coming?

There's plenty of evidence already, thanks to some excellent posts from Duane and David Guyatt.

Like so many other controversial issues, there seems to be significant suspicion concerning this one too. I guess it follows automatically that if 9/11 was a false flag operation, then those who had foreknowledge might want to profit financially from that foreknowledge.

Thanks to Duane and David for their informative postings on this issue. Your points are well made and merit consideration, despite all the noisy, vitriolic interference coming from Heckle and Jeckle.

OK so you want us to believe that when you wrote:

- there hadn't been "any formal government investigation into 9/11"

you really meant:

- "there hadn't been "any HONEST formal INDEPENDENT government investigation into INSIDER TRADING RELATED TO 9/11"?

Is that the story you wanna run with? Are people supposed to divine what you really mean when you say or write something else? What exactly did you mean by an “independent” “government” investigation? Aren’t the words in quotes antonyms in your lexicon?

That’s neat trick. When shown to be wrong you say, “I didn't really mean what I said, I obviously meant something else”. Sorry but I’m not buying it.

Also how do you know the SEC’s investigation was a pretense? Can you back this with information other than some articles written more than a few weeks after the fact or anything from someone with expertise in financial matters? Anything that refutes the information in the links I posted? No, you assume it was a pretense because it did come to same uninformed conclusion you did. Your logic seems circular.

1) There was insider trading related to 9/11

2) The SEC said they did uncover any

3) Therefore their investigation was a sham

4) They would only do that if they were covering for the culprits in or tied to the government.

5) Therefore there was an inside job

6) Therefore there was insider training

“your zeal to always try to prove me wrong about everything”

Oh yeah Duane there lots of people out to get you. I “always try to prove [you] wrong”? Let’s try a reality check now why don’t we? Why don’t you take a look and see how many of your posts I reply to and see how many of my posts are at all related to anything you’ve said.

Your disputes which focus on hair splitting semantics are too much, Len.

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing. What the hell does it matter? Are posters expected to qualify and clarify every sentence to your satisfaction?

You really need a holiday.

No.

What I personally care about is someone's sincerity and the quality of their research and the openness of their mind and the substance of their debate.

I fully expect them to be human and capable of being wound up, frustrated, and emotional.

That's very different from being utterly insincere, and only joining threads to hinder discussion while doing nothing to advance genuine research... Len.

Report alleged name-calling to the mods, not to me.

Touchdown, slam dunk and home run.

Somebody get Len some smelling salts.

This article by Dilip Hori illustrates concisely how the era of American global dominance is in rapid decline. It has a direct bearing on the Bush Administration's plans launch a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, because America would find itself isolated and condemned by a powerful network of countries with strong economic and political ties.

http://www.alternet.org/audits/60489/?page=1

The emergence of this network, of which Iran is an integral part, is the result of diplomatic initiatives by countries such as China, Russia and Venezuela, who have earned the goodwill and trust of a wide range of countries on the basis of mutual benefit and respect for national sovereignty and culture, rather than the American approach of exploitation and imposition of its values, culture and political system on all other countries. While America has launched wars--both military and economic--and made enemies, these emerging resource superpowers have been quietly forging the economic and political alliances which will render America's tactic of economic and military intimidation far less threatening to countries in Africa, Asia and South America. In the case of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, whose memebers comprise China, Russia and most of the countries bordering those states, America has been specifically excluded from even observer status, a status which has been granted to India, Pakistan, Mongolia and Iran.

When America finally pulls its head out of the sand of the Middle East, it will discover that it has been left behind.

I agree with every single word.

The idea that there is nothing suspicious here, when the investors won't collect their millions of dollars, is absurd. The non-collection is a smoking gun. So is the fact that these investors have been protected by the government.

But I'm just a "truther" spouting the usual nonsense.

I would be more inclined to classify you as a rational observer. (sorry if I've outed you, Ron).

Forum rule,

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

I don't think it is appropriate to start a thread questioning the motivations of a forum member. The forum rule states that we must concentrate on what is being said, not the personality of the poster. I think that this is mainly a guideline for keeping the level of debate above personal disagreements and keeping it on topic.

It benefits us all to keep the debate this way. Feel free to ask members questions via private message, but the forum should be for discussing issues. This is in everyones interest.

I hope this doesn't seem authortarian, but this is a forum for te discussion of history and politics.

All the best,

John

I agree with this post John, but I would just make a few brief observations:

1. The second sentence of rule 4 states "nor should reference be made to their abilities as researchers". Well Messrs Gratz and Colby, especially Gratz, disregard this part of that rule all the time. I'm tired of Tim regularly denigrating those with whom he disagrees. If you haven't read Trento, Bugliosi et al, Tim issues a rude dismissal, often claiming you are impeding REAL researchers from making progress in the case. Tim's pursuit of Myra Bronstein after Myra started a thread on JFK's alienation of big business in 1962, resulting in the former's bitter public fued with US steel manufacturers, is a case in point. Tim's blatant misrepresentation of the motivation for starting this thread should have been noted by moderators, imo. It was never claimed that this was the sole reason for JFK's assassination, rather that it could have been one of the factors contributing towards JFK's isolation from the power elite. A reasonable assertion, imo.

2. Len Colby claims he believes there was a conspiracy to murder JFK, yet never posts anything in support of this. Moreover, Len then claims that he is not really interested in the JFK assassination, his only interest being to argue bitterly with those who claim the film and photographic record have been altered. There's an incrongruity here, which appears to puzzle those researchers dedicated to solving the JFK case, including me. Further, Len spends most of his time on the political conspiracy threads defending the official stories fed to us by the mainstream media and, at times, rudely questioning the sanity of those who disagree. I'm often amazed at the speed with which Len becomes expert on a diverse range of controversial topics--always coming down on the side of officialdom. Of course, Len would probably reply that those who struggle to match his incredible feats are inadequate or worse. I'm afraid I must question the motives of a person who openly admits he believes JFK was a victim of conspiracy, yet displays no zeal in pursuit of this issue, which I believe is the most significant unsolved crime in modern history. For me, Len's stated position on JFK, the Bush regime's corruption and the global neocon agenda is incompatible with his apparent role on this Forum i.e. fearless defender of the status quo and official line. I'm only human and something smells very bad here. I believe Peter Lemkin's questions to Len were perfectly justified--a manifestation of the confusion felt among those concerned about a range of vital issues as to what Len Colby's real purpose here is.

3. Despite all this, I agree (once more) with Charles Drago that Gratz and Colby should not be banned. This only makes them martyrs, and I don't like the idea of banning dissenters anyway. However, I think they owe the Forum an explanation as to what exactly they are trying to achieve by their ubiquitous presence here. They might also want to modify their hectoring, inquisatorial style if they desire to engage in rational debate. I'm bloody sick of it.

A simple construction that Bush the Unelected's role model might appreciate:

Until the life of the terrorist is valued as highly as the life of the terrorized, the terror will continue.

Charles

Man do you EVER have it backwards...

Until the TERRORIST learns to value his OWN life as well as the lives of his victims, the terror will continue.

Man do you EVER have it backwards ...

The REAL terrorists value their own lives very highly ... It's the lives of their victims that they obviously don't give a crap about .

Well said, Duane. Some don't know who the real terrorists are.

Duane seems pretty obviously to have meant what wrote not your spin on it. His 1st paragraph dealt with “insider training” in response to you the 2nd was clearly refering to a wider investigation “the result would bring a revolution” etc. In any case he'd still be wrong because the SEC and 9/11 C looked in to it as well.

I read the links (both from the same site) you posted Len. The site appears balanced enough, although I point out that I am not across the wide range of 9/11 issues with any great depth. From my reading, the info on the site falls way short of demolishing suspicions regarding those transactions.

Perhaps you could explain what aspects you don’t think were satisfactorily explained? There were days in April 2001 where more United put options were sold than in September. American had it’s highest day that year but that came days after a report from Reuters that “"a further deterioration" in airline financials was probable” and a warning from American that “its third- and fourth-quarter losses would be larger even than already forecast”

Len,

Call me a skeptic, but I'm still not convinced. Just because the SE and 9/11 Commission looked at it (insider trading re 9/11), doesn't necessarily mean the case is closed. The WC and HSCA looked into the JFK assassination but I think I'm safe in saying that that case is far from closed. I've lost faith in official inquiries--too many 'officials' have a vested interest in preventing the full story from seeing the light of day.

In any case, I don't have the time to look into this issue right now, if at all. I'm concentrating on a few other things. There's a few books (not related to this issue) which I want to read for starters. Sorry to disappoint.

I have read about the suspicions concerning 9/11 insider trading in places other than this thread, so I think doubts still exist.

Very interesting, Duane.

A full and open investigation of 9/11 insider trading, if it ever happens, would reveal that certain well connected insiders had the ability to see into the future, and they didn't let an impending tragedy stop them from making a killing.

Mark .... Unfortunately that investigation will probably never happen ... At least not as long as those responsible for the attacks are still running the show ..

Even if by some miracle the next election is not rigged and a Democrat once again takes office , I don't believe there will ever be any formal government investigation into 9/11 .... If the truth is ever known , it would most likely mean the demise of America as we know it , as the result would bring a revolution against a government which is no longer for the people or by the people , but is rather intentionally killing it's people .

Some secrets need to be protected at all costs ... and so they are .

Why do I get the feeling neither Mark nor Duane even bothered to read the links I provided

"I don't believe there will ever be any formal government investigation into 9/11"

Whether or nor you are satisfied with the results several have been completed already

Ah Len, slippery as ever.

I was referring to a 9/11 INSIDER TRADING investigation--focusing exclusively on this aspect--not merely a 9/11 investigation. I think Duane was referring to the same thing, in so many words.

I read the links (both from the same site) you posted Len. The site appears balanced enough, although I point out that I am not across the wide range of 9/11 issues with any great depth. From my reading, the info on the site falls way short of demolishing suspicions regarding those transactions.

I can't understand the depth of feeling Tim has evoked in some forum members. I'm aware there is some 'previous' with other contributors, but I've seen little to provoke the kind of outrage on display at Tim's current postings.

He also provides other viewpoints for consumption, which help me at least, to better understand the broader political picture surrounding the events in DP and beyond.

Even if you totally disagree with everything Tim posts, surely you can take solace in the fact that his presence allows you to reinforce your own views, which many seem to do anyway.

For me and for the most part, I think Tim (deliberately at times) presents checks and balances through provision of materials which are all too readily dismissed. Sometimes he misses with his humour, but then I've been guilty of that also; sometimes things just don't appear as funny in writing as they so when spoken, and when you type with your own voice (like me) it compounds things.

My 2 cents, euros, pence...etc. FWIW

It's not just the substance but the style, Gary. If you read the threads Tim inhabits, you find that Tim often belittles opponents, declaring they are not entitled to participate as their knowledge is inadequate or they haven't read a certain book. It's an irritating style, with flowery praise and flattery for those who agree, and haughty dismissal of those who don't.

Because of this, Tim has a way of provoking candid responses. I'm surprised you can't see that.

Never heard of Irving Davidson before reading this thread but having read it I would make the following observations;

1. Since 1958, representative of Israeli Military Industries controlled by the Government of Israel (FBI file--post #27).

2. Running arms between Nicaragua and Israel (post #27).

3. Fed stories to Jack Anderson and had direct access to JEH (post #23).

4. Travelled between Switzerland, France , Italy, Israel, 1958, presumably for banking purposes (post #28).

Irving Davidson is Mossad. Wheaton's super grade, high level CIA officer friend (Davidson's associate) is also Mossad (if they're not one and the same person). It's understandable that Wheaton feared public disclosure would result in him being destroyed by the media. FWIW.

.................." he knew he'd been hung out to dry by Bush and Cheney to hide the FACT that they knew the intelligence for WMDs was far from conclusive, and had used it as a precept to do what they'd already decided to do. This was a major factor in Tenet's decision to leave the agency.

Pardon my interjection on your argument, but I beg to disagree..........the FACT is/was, the worldwide "intelligence community" had agreed that there were WMDs, even France and Germany, despite the fact that they didn't want U.N. involvement because their under the table "food for oil" (read: illegal furnishing of weapons, ammo, etc.) might be discovered. How do you explain 17 resolutions (which of course were never intended to be enforced) passed the U.N.? You may even remember that Colin Powell agreed they were there and made his very forceful (albeit unfortunately erroneous) presentation to the U.N. Further, many Senate Dems agreed, and voted for invasion, who had access to the same intelligence that Bush et. al. had. Of course it was easy for them to change their minds after the fact, not so easy for the CIC.

Its also easy for armchair pontificators to make unsubstantiated comments as you have made, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.

From a recent article by former CIA analyst Ray McGovern:

Consider, for example, the daring recruitment in mid-2002 of Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister, Naji Sabri, who was successfully “turned” into working for the CIA and quickly established his credibility. Sabri told us there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

My former colleagues, perhaps a bit naively, were quite sure this would come as a welcome relief to President George W. Bush and his advisers. Instead, they were told that the White House had no further interest in reporting from Sabri; rather, that the issue was not really WMD, it was “regime change.” (Don’t feel embarrassed if you did not know this; although it is publicly available, our corporate- owned, war profiteering media has largely suppressed this key story.)

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/22/3330/

Mark wrote:

Kennedy's advocacy of the steel workers case in 1962 was not the start of a communist revolution.

Whoever said it was?

Then why all that irrelevant rubbish about the Communist menace?

He also wrote:

Tim, I've noticed that in addition to your tireless advocacy of the 'Castro did it' fantasy, you become annoyed when members post evidence from JFK's record which shows that he was prepared to disregard special interest groups and act in the interests of the majority of US citizens. It's clearly a philosophy you don't share

Mark, as the old saying goes: Put up or shut up. Kindly cite but three examples by thread and post numbers. Thabk you.

No. This ain't the Tim Gratz thread.

Paraphrasing: "Communism isn't inherently bad."

Well now you have revealed yourself, Myra.

Tell me you have read "The Black Book of Communism."

Tell me you can estimate, to the closest million, how many people Communist regimes brutally murdered in the twentieth century?

Point me to a Communist state that allowed political AND religious liberty for its citizens.

Well, I remember the words of a great patriot that ALL men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Now I admit that not all Americans indeed had those rights when this country was started but we are getting there.

I live ninety miles from one of the last Communist states. I do not see too many people risking their lives to get into the worker's paradise with all of that great health care.

But you are right about one thing. I have no doubt in my mind that U.S. Steel killed JFK and I applaud you for your discovery of the true "big fish" behind the assassination. Just too bad there is no evidence but hey when has that ever stopped us?

A typical knee-jerk reaction from someone who is still trapped in a cold war mindset.

Kennedy's advocacy of the steel workers case in 1962 was not the start of a communist revolution. He had put a lot of effort into getting the steel workers to accept a responsible, 'non-inflationary' deal. Then the steel companies put their prices up just after it is announced. It was a doublecross, plain and simple. Kennedy said as much to Roger Blaugh, chairman of US Steel, on April 10, the day US Steel announced its price hike.

After Blaugh had left the meeting, JFK remarked to the others present, including Bobby and O'Donnell, "My father told me businessmen were all pricks, but I didn't really believe he was right until now". (Dallek, p.484)

Tim, I've noticed that in addition to your tireless advocacy of the 'Castro did it' fantasy, you become annoyed when members post evidence from JFK's record which shows that he was prepared to disregard special interest groups and act in the interests of the majority of US citizens. It's clearly a philosophy you don't share. Unfortunately for JFK, many important people in 1962 thought the same way as you do in 2007.

According to this article by former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the plan to attack Iran is still very much alive, with the recently classified as terrorists Iranian Revolutionary Guard named as the prime target. It may also explain the departure of Messrs Rove and Rumsfeld.

'We are left with a President who cannot actually govern because he is incapable of reasoned thought in coping with events outside his control, like those in the Middle East'.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/22/3330/

On Sept. 6, 2001, the Thursday before the tragedy, 2,075 put options were made on United Airlines and on Sept. 10, the day before the attacks, 2,282 put options were recorded for American Airlines. Given the prices at the time, this could have yielded speculators between $2 million and $4 million in profit.

SUPPRESSED DETAILS OF CRIMINAL INSIDER TRADING

LEAD DIRECTLY INTO THE CIA'S HIGHEST RANKS

CIA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR "BUZZY" KRONGARD

MANAGED FIRM THAT HANDLED "PUT" OPTIONS ON UAL

by Michael C. Ruppert

FTW, October 9, 2001 - Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the "put options" on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency. Until 1997 A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker's Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard's last position at Banker's Trust (BT) was to oversee "private client relations". In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.

Krongard (re?) joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush in March of this year. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11 attacks.

THE SCOPE OF KNOWN INSIDER TRADING

Before looking further into these relationships it is necessary to look at the insider trading information that is being ignored by Reuters, The New York Times and other mass media. It is well documented that the CIA has long monitored such trades - in real time - as potential warnings of terrorist attacks and other economic moves contrary to U.S. interests. Previous stories in FTW have specifically highlighted the use of Promis software to monitor such trades.

It is necessary to understand only two key financial terms to understand the significance of these trades, "selling short" and "put options".

"Selling Short" is the borrowing of stock, selling it at current market prices, but not being required to actually produce the stock for some time. If the stock falls precipitously after the short contract is entered, the seller can then fulfill the contract by buying the stock after the price has fallen and complete the contract at the pre-crash price. These contracts often have a window of as long as four months.

"Put Options" are contracts giving the buyer the option to sell stocks at a later date. Purchased at nominal prices of, for example, $1.00 per share, they are sold in blocks of 100 shares. If exercised, they give the holder the option of selling selected stocks at a future date at a price set when the contract is issued. Thus, for an investment of $10,000 it might be possible to tie up 10,000 shares of United or American Airlines at $100 per share, and the seller of the option is then obligated to buy them if the option is executed. If the stock has fallen to $50 when the contract matures, the holder of the option can purchase the shares for $50 and immediately sell them for $100 - regardless of where the market then stands. A call option is the reverse of a put option, which is, in effect, a derivatives bet that the stock price will go up.

A September 21 story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counter terrorism, entitled "Black Tuesday: The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?" documented the following trades connected to the September 11 attacks:

- Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million.

- On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance; Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent "insiders", they would represent a gain of about $4 million.

- [The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.]

- No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.

- Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley's share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million.

- Merrill Lynch & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day [a 1200% increase!]. When trading resumed, Merrill's shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by "insiders", their profit would have been about $5.5 million.

- European regulators are examining trades in Germany's Munich Re, Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. [FTW Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock making the attacks a "double whammy" for them.]

On September 29, 2001 - in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the major media - the San Francisco Chronicle reported, "Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data".

"The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors - whose identities and nationalities have not been made public - had advance knowledge of the strikes". They don't dare show up now. The suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking.

"October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000 shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called "put" options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp".

"The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of these options" This was the operation managed by Krongard until as recently as 1998.

As reported in other news stories, Deutsche Bank was also the hub of insider trading activity connected to Munich Re. just before the attacks.

CIA, THE BANKS AND THE BROKERS

Understanding the interrelationships between CIA and the banking and brokerage world is critical to grasping the already frightening implications of the above revelations. Let's look at the history of CIA, Wall Street and the big banks by looking at some of the key players in CIA's history.

Clark Clifford - The National Security Act of 1947 was written by Clark Clifford, a Democratic Party powerhouse, former Secretary of Defense, and one-time advisor to President Harry Truman. In the 1980s, as Chairman of First American Bancshares, Clifford was instrumental in getting the corrupt CIA drug bank BCCI a license to operate on American shores. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and banker.

John Foster and Allen Dulles - These two brothers "designed" the CIA for Clifford. Both were active in intelligence operations during WW II. Allen Dulles was the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland where he met frequently with Nazi leaders and looked after U.S. investments in Germany. John Foster went on to become Secretary of State under Dwight Eisenhower and Allen went on to serve as CIA Director under Eisenhower and was later fired by JFK. Their professions: partners in the most powerful - to this day - Wall Street law firm of Sullivan, Cromwell.

Bill Casey - Ronald Reagan's CIA Director and OSS veteran who served as chief wrangler during the Iran-Contra years was, under President Richard Nixon, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and stockbroker.

David Doherty - The current Vice President of the New York Stock Exchange for enforcement is the retired General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.

George Herbert Walker Bush - President from 1989 to January 1993, also served as CIA Director for 13 months from 1976-7. He is now a paid consultant to the Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor in the nation, which also shares joint investments with the bin Laden family.

A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard - The current Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the former Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown and former Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust.

John Deutch - This retired CIA Director from the Clinton Administration currently sits on the board at Citigroup, the nation's second largest bank, which has been repeatedly and overtly involved in the documented laundering of drug money. This includes Citigroup's 2001 purchase of a Mexican bank known to launder drug money, Banamex.

Nora Slatkin - This retired CIA Executive Director also sits on Citibank's board.

Maurice "Hank" Greenburg - The CEO of AIG insurance, manager of the third largest capital investment pool in the world, was floated as a possible CIA Director in 1995. FTW exposed Greenberg's and AIG's long connection to CIA drug trafficking and covert operations in a two-part series that was interrupted just prior to the attacks of September 11. AIG's stock has bounced back remarkably well since the attacks. To read that story, please go to http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/part_2.html.

One wonders how much damning evidence is necessary to respond to what is now irrefutable proof that CIA knew about the attacks and did not stop them. Whatever our government is doing, whatever the CIA is doing, it is clearly NOT in the interests of the American people, especially those who died on September 11.

On this particular night the crowd looked promising. I introduced myself to two women there, and after a short while, one of the women told me she worked for the CBOE. The CBOE is the Chicago Board Options Exchange. It is the exchange that handles trading in, among other things, stock options. I half-jokingly asked her, "Whatever happened to the CBOE investigation of all the profits made by those who bought put options on airlines stocks before 9-11?" (You make money on put options when a stock goes down in price.)

Her answered floored me. She said, "It probably would have been easy for us to find out who was behind the trades, but the government came in and told the CBOE president to stop the investigation."

Just to make sure I heard her right, I said to her, "The government came in and told the CBOE president not to investigate?" She said, "Yeah, it was really strange."

The conversation changed for a minute, but I wanted to get back to the government not wanting an investigation. I said to her again, a third time, making sure I heard right, "The government didn't want you to investigate?" She looked at me said "Yes, that's right." Then she looked at me a little longer, she knew I had interest in this topic, she looked a little nervous and then blurted out to me, "We erased the data. Our data on the trades is gone."

[© COPYRIGHT, 2001, Michael C. Ruppert and FTW Publications, www.copvcia.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted or distributed for non-profit purposes only.]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/illegaltades.html

Very interesting, Duane.

A full and open investigation of 9/11 insider trading, if it ever happens, would reveal that certain well connected insiders had the ability to see into the future, and they didn't let an impending tragedy stop them from making a killing.

Mark, I can indeed see the joke.

Everytime I see you have added a post I hope you will contribute something other than a snide remark. To date, no such luck, but I retain hope.

You see I am not a phoney; rather I am an eternal optimist.

Don't be modest---you're much more than that.

Insofar as contributions are concerned, it's you rather than me that matters. I live in Australia but you live in Florida. Representatives Waxman (LA) and Clay (Missouri) are your key contacts.

By all accounts, Waxman has an impressive record in health and environmental issues. Sounds like a decent fellow. You don't have a problem with liberal Democrats, do you?