Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Jack White]

"Correct me if I have any facts wrong here. "

You have not presented any FACTS...only uninformed opinion.

You are not even aware of the facts.

Jack

[Peter McKenna]

"Correct me if I have any facts wrong here. "

You have not presented any FACTS...only uninformed opinion.

You are not even aware of the facts.

Jack

Actually, Jack, in the referenced post, what I presented were 'Facts'.

Unforutantely you seem to have trouble distinguishing reality from fabrication.

[Len Colby]

Hohum as Peter McKenna already pointed out the usual laundry list of supposed evidence that doesn't stand up to scrutiny plus some invented BS claims (only the military has access to thermate). Perhaps Jack or Peter (Lemkin) can point out anything that hasn't already been discussed here.

Unlike Peter (McKenna) I don't reject outright the notion the gov't COULD have been behind 9/11. As I pointed out on another thread it seems Nixon and Kissinger conspired to prolong the Vietnam War leading to exponentially more deaths but the available evidence doesn't support "inside job" theories.

[Matthew Lewis]

Just a few things wrong in the posted article. I'm sure there are more but I only skimmed it and don't really care to get into a detailed discussion.

One of the first things to catch my eye was this.

WTC Buildings 4, 5, and 6 were hit by massive amounts of debris from the Twin Towers and yet they remained standing.

It is totally invalid to make a comparison of those buildings. They are different buildings with different amounts and types of damage. If they were the exact same design and had the exact same damage then maybe the comparison would be valid but otherwise it is a red herring.

Then there was this.

Building 7, a 48-storey skyscraper, was hit neither by a fuel-laden aircraft nor by falling debris and yet it came down.

To say it was not hit by debris is just wrong as there are photos and videos of it being hit. There are photos showing some of the damagae and eyewitness testimony of the damage. One may argue to the extent of the damage and that's fine but to claim it was not hit by debris is false.

Further, just 6 paragraphs later it says this

Given that the building was only slightly damaged by debris

The article contradicts itself.

I also noticed the erroneous claim that "pull it" is a demolition term for a controlled explosion.

When a demolitionist implodes a building with explosives it is known as a "shoot" not a "pull".

Note the red lined box in the lower left corner here

http://www.thestateonline.com/news/pdfs/implosion.pdf

"Pull" is only used if they bring something down mechanically (like they did with WTC 6) such as with a wrecking ball or pulling a chimney or tower over onto its side. Even then most companies speak of it as a "felling".

Check this demo companies list of projects. Do you see a pull anywhere? How about a felling, or a shot?

http://www.dykon-blasting.com/History/DemoJobList.htm

Even this kids DVD review mentions that buildings are "shot".

http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/showreview.php3?ID=395

with this quote, "they set a new world record for most buildings "shot" (industry term for bringing down a building or structure with explosives) at one time."

There is the implication that Silverstein benefitted from the insurance. The last I heard his settlement was cut down( a few billion less than the 7 billion claimed), it had to be used for rebuilding, was less than the estimated cost of rebuilding, and he was still paying rent to the tune of $120 million a year for an area without a building and therefore without an income. Doesn't sound like a benefit to me.

More info and a detailed analysis here

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

The claim that Marvin Bush handled the insurance is a new one. Never seen that one before.

And the claim that Marvin Bush was in charge of the security at the time is false. He left the company more than a year before and even then was only one of many on the board.

This one is interesting

The only piece of debris to be found in photos taken immediately after the disaster is an engine piece lying beside a fireman.

BridgeStone Media Group contacted Rolls Royce, the engine-makers, who said that the part was not a piece from any Rolls-Royce

engine they knew of.

I don't remember where I saw it but the part of Rolls Royce that was contacted did not make the type of engines normally found on a 757. Small wonder they wouldn't be familiar with the piece or engine. I think this may have been brought up in Fahrenhype 911 but I could be wrong.

There is this

What was under the large blue tarp that several military personnel carried away from the

site – the remains of a missile? Why is it being removed rather than being examined in situ?

I believe they are referring to the photo found here.

http://www.911myths.com/html/blue_box.html

Seems to me that it is a tent and not a tarp covered box. Especially considering the other photos on the page showing other blue tents.

And this

Why did the FBI confiscate the security footage taken by the Citgo gas station and the Sheraton hotel opposite the Pentagon and not release them?

Those videos have now been released. They were confiscated as part of the investigation and released after the trial. As expected, they didn't show much of anything because they were low frame rate cameras typical to security cameras and they were not pointed at the Pentagon because they were pointed were they were needed to do their job.

Again, I just skimmed it and these were a few things that jumped out at me. As mentioned by Len Colby there is nothing new here just another parroting of various websites that had poor research to start with.

[Dave Greer]

Just a few things wrong in the posted article. I'm sure there are more but I only skimmed it and don't really care to get into a detailed discussion.

One of the first things to catch my eye was this.

WTC Buildings 4, 5, and 6 were hit by massive amounts of debris from the Twin Towers and yet they remained standing.

It is totally invalid to make a comparison of those buildings. They are different buildings with different amounts and types of damage. If they were the exact same design and had the exact same damage then maybe the comparison would be valid but otherwise it is a red herring.

Then there was this.

Building 7, a 48-storey skyscraper, was hit neither by a fuel-laden aircraft nor by falling debris and yet it came down.

To say it was not hit by debris is just wrong as there are photos and videos of it being hit. There are photos showing some of the damagae and eyewitness testimony of the damage. One may argue to the extent of the damage and that's fine but to claim it was not hit by debris is false.

Further, just 6 paragraphs later it says this

Given that the building was only slightly damaged by debris

The article contradicts itself.

I also noticed the erroneous claim that "pull it" is a demolition term for a controlled explosion.

When a demolitionist implodes a building with explosives it is known as a "shoot" not a "pull".

Note the red lined box in the lower left corner here

http://www.thestateonline.com/news/pdfs/implosion.pdf

"Pull" is only used if they bring something down mechanically (like they did with WTC 6) such as with a wrecking ball or pulling a chimney or tower over onto its side. Even then most companies speak of it as a "felling".

Check this demo companies list of projects. Do you see a pull anywhere? How about a felling, or a shot?

http://www.dykon-blasting.com/History/DemoJobList.htm

<Snip>

Again, I just skimmed it and these were a few things that jumped out at me. As mentioned by Len Colby there is nothing new here just another parroting of various websites that had poor research to start with.

You managed to get further into this article than me Matthew. I spotted several of the obvious flaws and inconsistencies you've pointed out here in the first few paragraphs. Hands up, because of that I only skim-read the rest of the article (if it's so flawed early on, I don't expect to find any jaw-droppers in the body of it).

If you want to impeach the president, then he may have a case to answer for sending the US to war in Iraq under false pretences (I'd like to do the same to Bliar for taking my country into a war very few of its citizens wanted or approved of). Trying to impeach him with what appears to be little more than falsehoods (no damage to WT7), misinterpretations ("pull" the building), conjecture and speculation, actually strengthens his case (it smells of a very dodgy fit-up). He'd have absolutely no problem at all disposing of that lot in the Supreme Court, or wherever these US impeachment hearings are held.

IMO it would be far more damaging building a case on why he went to war on Iraq. I'd also like to see a proper investigation into the intelligence failures that ultimately allowed the attacks to go ahead (wittingly or unwittingly).

[Matthew Lewis]

I also only skimmed it as I mentioned already. There are a lot of misconceptions, inconsistencies and outright lies though that one might wonder if the article is disinformation or if it is just simply poorly researched slop.

[Jack White]

Since you LIE-ERS (opposite of TRUTHERS) insist on something NEW, try this:

.........

interview with 9/11 FireFighter John Schroeder

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=53...&pr=goog-sl

BROOKLYN, N.Y. - Firefighter John Schroeder, assigned to Engine Company 10 directly across

the street from the World

Trade Center complex, holds back tears and describes his first-hand experience on Sept.

11th. His story directly contradicts many

aspects of the National Commission on Terrorist attacks and corroborates many other

eyewitnesses testimony.

“Standing outside the firehouse with my buddies, we were talking about how beautiful the

day was. Then just like that, our lives

changed forever. Some of those guys I would never see again.”

In this exclusive interview, Firefighter Schroeder recollects in great detail how he was

one of the first firefighters to rush to the complex.

“We first assembled on West Street, where we saw someone burnt beyond recognition. We were

like ‘What is going on here?’ and

then went straight into the Marriot building” From there, Firefighter Schroeder made his

way to the lobby of the North Tower. “It

looked like a bomb went off, and we started making our way up the stairs to rescue as

many people as we could.”

As they were making there way up the floors, Firefighter Schroeder heard a huge explosion.

“The elevators just blew right out. We

couldn’t believe it. The plane hits 80 floors up but the elevators explode at least five

minutes later? It was unreal.”

Firefighter Schroeder made it all the way up to the 23rd floor before barely hearing on

the failing radios that another plane was coming

in. That plane would hit the South Tower though for some reason “We were tossed like a rag

doll by another explosion in our building.

People were making there way down the stairwells burnt like you couldn’t believe. We were

all shocked because it seemed as if there

was fire everywhere, on so many floors. It just didn’t make sense”.

John Schroeder, we want to thank you for being as brave as your job requires in speaking

out about your experiences on Sept/ 11th.

You have set the historical record straight by explaining your story. This Nation is

forever greatful to you as your account will help to

save and protect many more lives.

[Peter McKenna]

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

It is reported that you will be meeting with the President of the United States and the President of Mexico at Montebello, P.Q., August 20-21, 2007, to discussthe Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). I would like to offer you a briefing paper so that there is no doubt in your mind about who it is you are negotiating with when you negotiate with Mr. Bush.

<snip by Mod to reduce size of post>

The fate of Canada rests with you, sir. History will know the facts. They cannot be

hidden. Please defend our country from the designs

of the Bush administration.

Jack White has posted a diatribe written by a guy named Steve Beckow supposedly as a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister, as an advisory on the surreptitious agenda of President George Bush, in preparation for the Security and Prosperity Partnership Meeting, to be held with the US, Canadian, and Mexican heads of state in Monticello, P. Q.

As proof of this agenda Mr. Beckow identifies that all of the acts of destruction which occurred on 9/11/2001, at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, occurred by the design of the US administration.

Steve Beckow is identified as a former Canadian Official, which is supposed to give him credentials, even though the letter is little more than a repetition of the conspiracy theories advanced by numerous 9/11 conspiracy sites. This particular conspiracy theory (i.e. the letter and conspiracy sites) is advanced as one cogent theory, that supposedly the acts of destruction blamed on Al-Qaeda were really a huge false flag operation designed by the US Administration and executed by the US Military.

Facets of this conspiracy theory, such as the cause of the World trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapses, differ from site to site. One conspiracy theorist assigns the collapses to a ‘Star Wars Weapon’, while another identifies ‘Thermate’ as facilitating the ‘controlled demolition’ of these buildings. Details vary, but there is general agreement that the agency responsible, which carried out the actual acts of destruction, is the United States Executive office.

The posting of this letter is another in giant pile of pronouncements concerning 9/11 made by the conspiracy theorists who post here. These pronouncements are very similar in one regard. They all advance the theory that 9/11 was done at the hands of the US Government, but none offer absolute proof of this pronouncement.

For every statement of supposed proof, there is a rebuttal. While some observations are made which may concentrate suspicion or which may seem to further the argument, there has been no real proof that the US Government is the hand behind the screen. You can wade through the mounds of claims and rebuttals until your nostrils are filled with the stench, but as long as claims of each side is pursued with equal vigor, you will find that there is no absolute proof of this conspiracy.

One point of this dichotomy seems very strange. Typically in a case of conspiracy, especially one as large as 9/11, the case for proving a conspiracy should be accomplished point by point, one item at a time. If one individual item is proven to be the work of ‘X’ then from that point forward a case is built. Watergate was proven in this way, by following the trail of money, the payoffs, to the Watergate plumbers (ever see the movie, ‘All the President’s Men’?). If a single point is proven, then the rest of the case follows in step right behind.

The 9/11 conspiracy does not follow this pattern. Instead of saying ‘proving this one point proves the involvement of an inside man, hence it is proven that 9/11 was not the responsibility of Al Qaeda’, the whole tangled mess is offered as a whole, ‘take it or leave it’. To doubt one facet of this tangled mess of conspiracy theory results in being labeled a disinformationist or agent provocateur. This behavior is not consistent with the plodding, anal retentive, ‘devil is in the details’, detective work that is required to piece together a giant conspiracy theory like 9/11.

Piece after piece is posted, offering the same tired unsubstantiated information. The same arguments, to debunk these items, are also repeated time and again. Ad hominems are thrown, frustration sets in.

Sometimes it can be entertaining to see what preposterous new claims have been made recently, or to what extreme an argument has descended.

One thing is true. The dichotomy of 9/11 conspiracy has consumed an enormous amount of time. If measured in total man-hours, the number must be staggering. So what has been accomplished to this point? What has been proven? How many people believe the unsubstantiated claims of pieces like ‘Loose Change’, et al? If anything the theories have bogged down a large number of people in argument; Is that an accomplishment in and of itself?

Edited August 22, 2007 by Evan Burton
No need to quote posts verbatim when they are very long

[Jack White]

McKenna CLEARLY has not read a single one of the excellent books concerning 911.

All he knows is shallow hearsay of bits and pieces.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

It sounds so much like an Apollo debate. Jack, you accuse people of not reading excellent material around, and just going by hearsay.

The gist of the letter DOES contain much of the "truther" claims. A couple of people have addressed specific claims made in the letter.

How about taking the rebuttals, one by one, and showing why - in your opinion - they are flawed or just plain wrong?

Although some people have done so, if you disagree with the contents of the letter then demonstrate WHY the contents of the letter should not be taken seriously. Associations are one thing, but try to address the specific points raised. This was done for the WTC7 claims; there are a few images of the damage, and many first-hand reports about the extensive damage sustain. This was raised and IIRC links were provided to back the claims.

Jack, do you have a link to where Karen Kwiatkowski made her statement about what she saw after the Pentagon attack? I can find a number of quotes of it, but nowhere to actually say where / when she said it.

[Len Colby]

Since you LIE-ERS (opposite of TRUTHERS) insist on something NEW, try this:

.........

interview with 9/11 FireFighter John Schroeder

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=53...&pr=goog-sl

BROOKLYN, N.Y. - Firefighter John Schroeder, assigned to Engine Company 10 directly across

the street from the World

Trade Center complex, holds back tears and describes his first-hand experience on Sept.

11th. His story directly contradicts many

aspects of the National Commission on Terrorist attacks and corroborates many other

eyewitnesses testimony.

“Standing outside the firehouse with my buddies, we were talking about how beautiful the

day was. Then just like that, our lives

changed forever. Some of those guys I would never see again.”

[...]

John Schroeder, we want to thank you for being as brave as your job requires in speaking

out about your experiences on Sept/ 11th.

You have set the historical record straight by explaining your story. This Nation is

forever greatful to you as your account will help to

save and protect many more lives.

It's ironic but not surprising that based on zero evidence Jack accuses someone else of not having done sufficient research into a particular subject. AFAICR Peter has never demonstrated a lack of knowledge regarding 9/11. Jack and the guy who posted the interview on the other hand seem not to have read the NIST report which they claim this fireman’s interview contradicts. Based on the posted snippets of the transcript it doesn’t post impact explosions are discussed it as well as in the 9/11 C. report.

I did skim the initial article and did notice something I hadn’t seen before but it turns out to be a lie:

“But Boston Center air traffic controller Robin Hordon, who was present most of the day on 9/11, said that air traffic controllers knew by around 8:30 a.m. that they were watching an emergency unfold. He was on duty on September 11 and asserted that it would have been standard procedure for the air traffic controller involved to phone NORAD sector control and ask them: “What do you see?”

Mr. Hordon it turns out was one of the ATCs fired by Reagan in August 1981 and thus had not been on duty for over 20 years. The last 9/11 he was “on duty” was September 11, 1980! He also admits to still being bitter and bearing a grudge.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-review...7XSY9NEVEUFW?ie

This is something that the (bend the) “truthers” have tried to cover up.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/decem...ccontroller.htm

Although once it came out* a small number** acknowledged this. One also wonders if he really knew within hours it was an “inside job” why he waited 5 years to say anything despite previously posting his political beliefs (on other subjects) on various forums.

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index....post&p=6778

Len

PS - So who are the liars now?

* http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-70564.html and the “ScrewLooseChange” forum link above.

** One example is http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...irstfifteen.htm based on Google searches (see below) only 300 or so of the nearly 3000 “truther” pages about him mention this

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=P...amp;btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Robin+Ho...CENTER%22+PATCO

Edited August 22, 2007 by Len Colby

[Peter McKenna]

McKenna CLEARLY has not read a single one of the excellent books concerning 911.

All he knows is shallow hearsay of bits and pieces.

Jack

Of course, that is your patent claim, since I do not believe the entire conspiracy theory as put forth by you, and those you advocate, then I have only been exposed to “shallow hearsay, of bits and pieces”. This is your standard mode of ad hominem refutation for those who choose to disbelieve the maven of 9/11 conspiracy.

Let me ask you, Jack, were World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 the object of a controlled demolition? Was thermate used, or were WTC 1 and 2 felled by a ‘Star Wars’ type weapon? If thermate was used, or a ‘Star Wars’ type weapon, why were there reported explosions? Neither of these demolition methods should have caused explosions. Different theories for causes for the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 have been offered, at different conspiracy sites, and at different times, many of which you have advocated at one time or another.

Is the basic tenet of your position, that the WTC 1 and 2 buildings collapsed for reason(s) other than being struck by a passenger jet, that the speed of collapse (“near free fall”) and the arrangement of the debris following the collapse indicates to you that the cause is other than the passenger jet?

I understand that the argument is more complex than that. Since there are no overwhelming individual proofs, theorists cling to the aggregate of many individual observations, aspects from second hand reports from people on hand, extrapolations made from applied sciences and engineering such as that the melting point of the structural steel was far above the heat capability of jet fuel, and that the ‘pancaking’ of Tower floors, in concert with the observed speed of collapse, is in direct conflict with conservation of momentum.

Most of these facets of the overall theory are really just bad engineering and have been debunked (on this site and many others, and by studies and computer modeling performed by the NIST).

My opinion is that a conspiracy theory such as the ‘9/11 conspiracy’ should prove at least one incontrovertible fact that is indicative of a conspiracy (an example would be to prove that WTC Building 7 was the subject of a controlled demolition, and that the demolition was planned and prepared prior to 9/11, this means to PROVE it and not that it just appears to be a controlled demolition) from which it is reasonable to assume that other facts of conspiracy will follow in the same or a similar vein.

But, as you have vigorously demonstrated in prior posts, suspicion of just one facet of 9/11 is unacceptable. This conspiracy theory must be fleshed out completely and swallowed whole, or not at all. The 9/11 conspiracy must be as Jack White proclaims it (of course I’m sure this in keeping with the 9/11 camp from which you hail).

That is my major problem with the 9/11 conspiracy theories and theorists. There are aspects of which I am suspicious (as I have said previously) but of course that is completely unacceptable to you. I must believe the entire conspiracy theory as proclaimed by you, or I am a disinformationist, or I am the victim of hearsay, etc., (ad homs and so forth).

In reality, this mindset probably has done more harm than good for your side of this argument, and has done much to marginalize your 9/11 ‘Truth’ movement without much help. Sometimes I wonder which side you really advocate.

[Jack White]

History Channel Hit Piece: Dirty Tricks,

Malicious Lies & Journalistic Fraud

The real story behind Brad Davis, NBC, Popular Mechanics and the

History Channel - media whore stooges who engaged in deliberate

deception, manipulation and chicanery to please their corporate bosses

Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

MP3: Alex Jones Responds to the History Channel Hit Piece

The History Channel 9/11 special that aired last night was by far the

worst hit piece we have ever witnessed, a completely savage, dishonest

and deceptive abomination, replete with dirty tricks, malicious lies

and a level of journalistic fraud that goes way beyond simple bias.

Bradley Davis, the producer of the show, is a paid xxxx and a hit

piece specialist who deceives people by gaining their confidence and

then attacking them behind their back.

He is famous for the smear job documentary on Michael Jackson and

makes a career out of conning people and then stabbing them in the

back. His tongue is so smooth, that even the Loose Change crew were

prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on his impartiality

before last night's hit piece was aired, with Davis having tricked

them into believing he was a friend.

Before filming began, Alex Jones asked Davis point blank if the

documentary was going to be a hit piece, which Davis denied. After we

brought attention to the History Channel's blurb on their website,

which clearly characterized the show as a hit piece, Davis panicked

and promised to alter the promo, calling it a "misrepresentation," as

well as re-edit the entire program to make it more balanced. The promo

temporarily disappeared from the website and the broadcast of the show

was put back by a week.

(Article continues below)

During the course of this second exchange, Davis again promised Jones

that the show was not going to be a hit piece and was very upset that

we had discovered he was behind the NBC hit piece on Jackson -

seemingly frightened that his cover might be blown and his next victim

would be alerted to his scheming tricks. He was terrified and kept

repeating that he didn't want to be quoted on anything he said.

Just like Popular Mechanics swore that their straw man smear job

wouldn't be a hit piece, Davis engaged in journalistic fraud and

complete dishonesty by lying directly to Alex Jones' face in claiming

the documentary was to be neutral just so he could secure the interview.

Just like William Randolph Hearst, the progenitor of the term "yellow

journalism," Davis will go down in history as a xxxx and a fraud.

The show itself was deliberately crafted, edited, shot and manipulated

to portray the 9/11 truth movement in a completely negative light,

while exalting the so-called experts to almost God-like status.

- The program makers pulled out all the stops to hire nationally

renowned NBC news anchor Lester Holt (pictured) to narrate the show, a

trusted voice that was utilized to brutally debunk 9/11 truth

representatives.

- The debunkers, people like James Meigs whose scientific expertise

stretches as far as being the editor of Video Review and Entertainment

Weekly, were labeled as experts while real experts like Physicist

Professor Steven Jones were stripped of any such description.

- The debunkers' interviews were pristinely shot and framed, with

beautiful backdrops and highly sympathetic camera angles and filters,

whereas the truthers were shot from bizarre positions, their images

were deliberately distorted and even the color filter of the shot had

been manipulated to make their appearance look tainted, blurred and

contorted. This was an intentional ploy and a crude act of

manipulation to detract credibility from the truthers and violates all

known ethical standards of journalism.

- The producers of the show failed to offer the proviso that Hearst

Publishing, the owner of Popular Mechanics, also holds a controlling

stake in the History Channel (via its stake in the A & E Television

Network), therefore concealing from the viewer a blatant conflict of

interest that negated the neutrality of the show before it had even begun.

- The debunkers were afforded far more time on camera while the

truthers were sidelined.

- The narrator of the show would dismiss the questions and evidence

raised by the truthers as unproven or debunked in an ad hominem manner

without providing any evidence to justify the assertion.

- The truthers were edited so that only hesitant responses to

questions were broadcast, casting doubt on the veracity of their

claims in the mind of the unsuspecting viewer.

- The show included a clip of Alex Jones' appearance at the University

of Texas, at which around 500 people packed the lecture hall to hear

his speech, but deliberately and maliciously edited the footage to

include shots taken during recess, so as to make it appear that the

lecture hall was mostly empty. In addition, lingering shots of empty

chairs were included to further deceive the viewer into thinking few

had attended the speech. This is journalistic fraud of the worse kind

- a blatant misrepresentation and deliberate skewing of actual events.

- In a similar vein, footage from 9/11 truth protests was broadcast

but the angle of the shot was always tight, so as to make out that few

people had attended the demonstration, when in fact thousands were

present.

- Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics, mirroring a dirty trick that was

also employed in the BBC hit piece, maliciously lied and smeared Alex

Jones and others in the program by claiming that most of the 9/11

families hate them and that they are responsible for causing the

families more pain. Coburn and the show's producers know this is an

outright lie and that the majority of the family members are asking

the same questions as Alex Jones and others. Bill Doyle,

representative of the largest group of 9/11 family members told the

Alex Jones Show directly that over half of the family members have

questions about the official story. Alex Jones and the Loose Change

crew offered contact details for numerous 9/11 first responders,

firefighters and family members that were asking questions of the

official version, but absolutely none were interviewed by Brad Davis

and the rest of the show's producers.

- The producers of the show tried to make out that Loose Change had

recanted their position on the issue of controlled demolition, when in

fact Dylan Avery and the other members of the crew were merely using

their Final Cut version to focus on other topics, having already

covered controlled demolition at length in previous versions. This

trick was used to claim that evidence for bombs and controlled

demolition, which is attested to by scores of firefighters and first

responders, none of which were interviewed by the producers, had been

debunked.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Get access

to hundreds of special video reports, audio interviews, books and

documentary films. Subscribers also get instant access to our hugely

popular forum where you can network with like-minded people, meet up

and get active! Click here to subscribe.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Articles and text from 9/11 truth websites were shown, but the

actual URL addresses of the sites were blurred out, with the History

Channel obviously frightened that people might actually visit such

websites and find out that the program was a pack of lies.

- The debunkers attempted to wriggle out of Secretary Norman Mineta's

bombshell testimony about Cheney's actions in the Emergency Operations

Center, by claiming that Mineta was talking about Flight 93 and not

the plane that hit the Pentagon. In reality, Mineta makes it clear in

his testimony that he is talking about Flight 77, "the airplane coming

in to the Pentagon," and this is then confirmed by Commissioner Lee

Hamilton.

- The debunkers admitted that temperatures inside the twin towers were

not hot enough to melt steel, but claimed that they were hot enough to

weaken steel and cause the collapse. The debunkers uniformly failed to

address the fact that firefighters and first responders described

witnessing molten steel beneath the rubble of the towers and they also

ignored Professor Steven Jones' scientific analysis of the iron-rich

microspheres found in the rubble. In a website posting last night,

Professor Jones stated that he emphatically pushed the dust analysis

during his interview with the producers, but the topic was completely

overlooked. The New York Times reported that the molten steel was

"perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered" but the History Channel,

mirroring NIST, failed to address the issue.

- The debunkers mentioned WTC 7 only in passing and completely failed

to address why the building, which wasn't hit by a plane, collapsed in

7 seconds into its own footprint after suffering only limited fire

damage from falling debris. They also failed to mention why news

outlets were reporting the collapse of Building 7 over an hour before

it actually fell.

- The wargames that dovetailed 9/11 and deliberately confused NORAD

personnel so as to slow response to the real attack were completely

excluded.

- The Able Danger program and how the hijackers were discovered before

9/11 was completely excluded.

- The fact that the money man behind the hijackers, Pakistan's ISI

Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with U.S. government and intelligence

officials before and on the morning of 9/11, was completely excluded.

- William Rodriguez' first-hand testimony of explosions prior to the

impact of the planes was completely excluded, as was the testimony of

numerous firefighters who attested to bombs and explosions.

- NBC reporter Pat Dawson claimed that FDNY Chief of Safety Albert

Turi had only described explosions, not bombs, going off,

contradicting Dawson's own report at the time which stated, "Reports

of a secondary device, that is another `bomb' going off."

After watching this two hour charade, Alex Jones was left stunned and

irate that the producers had deliberately set out to create something

that goes way beyond the scope of bias - an intentional propaganda

attack piece strewn with manifestly provable lies, dirty tricks and

misrepresentation, and that the show's producers, and in particular

Brad Davis, had purposefully lied all along in order to shield the

fact that this was a savage hit piece of the highest order.

In comparison, The History Channel makes Fox News look fair and balanced!

Framing Alex Jones as a demon and making out that he is causing pain

to 9/11 families, when in fact during our last visit to ground zero

most of the firefighters and police personally thanked us, is a very

serious allegation and we are waiting to see what kind of damages will

accrue as a result while we consider our next step.

As we expected all along, Brad Davis and the rest of the charlatans at

NBC, the History Channel and Popular Mechanics, have pleased their

corporate masters by unleashing the most twisted, distorted, dishonest

and savage hit piece in television history. They have shown their hand

by deliberately abandoning any pretense at ethical journalism and

delivering exactly what their Hearst "yellow journalism" Publishing

and GE bosses demanded - a bias, malicious, deceptive, and

manipulative tissue of lies and another reason for Americans to

disengage from an establishment media empire that continues to

hemorrhage viewers on a daily basis due to its ceaseless lies and

propaganda.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/augus...irty_tricks.htm

[Duane Daman]

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

[Duane Daman]

Great article Jack .... I watched that ridiculous 9/11 debunk show the other night on the History Chanel and it was exactly what I assumed it would be .... Government disinformation at it's most obvious ... This documentary was nothing but a handful of government shills pretending to be "experts" and selectively choosing which "conspiracy theories" to pick apart .... If the current administration ( which is busy destroying America ) is anything , it's predictable ...Considering how long this false flag information has been available on the internet , I was wondering what was taking them so long to take it to mainstream television .

Thus , the cover-up begins ....