Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Craig Lamson]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/right]

Oh there's a money trail alright, check out the stock "put" options placed on United

& American Airlines, in the days running up to 9-11.Somebody made millions from

a foreknowledge of the events. & by the way, the CIA was electronically following

these put options. Just more of those darned coincidences I guess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could be wrong but I seem to remember that no one ever claimed the put options. In any case they were worth millions, about 5 IIRC, hardly big bucks in todays world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For anyone interested in this Google "put options 9-11" and make your own mind

up. The total money unclaimed ammounts to about $25,000,000. But its the CIA'S

behavior that is more ,to say the least, Strange.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where did you find that 25million figure Steven. My search shows 2.5 million. In any case my search also shows that the put options were not unusual in amounts compared to some other trading days. Thats kind of interesting too. Its amazing what some of these things look like in perspective..... And exactly what do you find strange about the cia behavoir? Lay it out.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Craig.

Google "put options 9-11" click on site, suppressed details of criminal insider

trading. If you wish to rebutt what you find there, I will happily debate it with you

I dont have time to repeat it all now, which is why I suggested others do their own

search. I am in the middle of setting up a Seminar site for Jack the Ripper students

so I am pushed for time. The names STEVE, BTW.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig.

Google "put options 9-11" click on site, suppressed details of criminal insider

trading. If you wish to rebutt what you find there, I will happily debate it with you

I dont have time to repeat it all now, which is why I suggested others do their own

search. I am in the middle of setting up a Seminar site for Jack the Ripper students

so I am pushed for time. The names STEVE, BTW.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I get the same information I got before..2.5 MILLION IN UNCLAIMED put options, not 25 million like you claim in your post. Thats my rebuttal. If you have any information that shows 25 million please post it. For the sake of argument, your 25million, if you can find that figure somewhere, is still chump change in todays world...hell lotto winners do better than that.

As for the rest of the CIA bluster...well....sheesh.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

For those who visit these threads & may be interested, The aforementioned Ripper seminars start next Friday, on the "History Debates" section of this Forum. If you like a good mystery, you will enjoy this. see you there. AS regards 9-11, If any new evidence emerges I shall post it. Read the threads and keep an open mind..

Steve.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Sorry double post

Edited June 3, 2005 by Stephen Turner

[John Simkin]

Vincent J. Salandria was one of the first people in America to question the truth of the Warren Commission. On 15th May, 2002, he wrote the following email to his friends:

Senator: U.S. didn't connect 'dots' before 9/11

CNN.com, May 15, 2002, Posted: 10:04 PM EDT (0204 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/inv.fbi.terror/?related

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- "U.S. authorities failed to recognize clues before Septemer 11th about a potential terrorist attack, including an internal FBI memo that questioned whether Osama bin Laden was behind Arab students taking aviation lessons in the Unied States, a key Senate leader said Wednesday.

"In an interview with CNN, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham, D-Florida, said the House and Senate intelligence panels will hold hearings soon about various memos and reports, including one dubbed the Phoenix document, written by an FBI agent last summer."

A key question, Graham said, would be "why these dots weren't seen and connected."

The Phoenix document was the subject of a briefing for lawmakers last week, he said.

The memo, he said, cited "an unusual number of Arab students" taking flight lessons in Arizona and raised "the suspicion that they had been sent there in a coordinated plot by Osama bin Laden in order to learn the U.S. civil aviation procedures."

Asked whether the September 11 attacks might have been averted had the Phoenix document raised more red flags, Graham replied, "Well, it might have been if this had been seen in the context of other information, which indicated that there was a potential conspiracy to use commercial airliners as weapons of mass destruction."

Graham continued. "That could have started a chain of events, which would have disrupted September 11, but unfortunately because the information was not placed in the right hands or was distributed to too many places, there wasn't a single point of contact for analysis and reporting of what was going on."

"We failed to put the puzzle together before the horrific event."

Lawmakers, Graham added, "did not get a satisfactory answer about why the memo did not prompt more FBI action and investigation."

Yeah, especially since Moussaoui excited attention because he was not interested in learning how to take off or land a commercial airliner. Now I wonder what he could have had in mind learning to fly a plane once it got into the air and not wishing to know how he could land it? Let us count the many matters he may have had in mind. One -- using the plane as a weapon of mass destruction -- jumps immediately into my mind. As for other suggestions... Funny, none occurs to me.

Have you guys got some thoughts on this score? Well, if you don't, I am sure that the governmental commission investigating this matter will come up with something better than my single-bullet explanation. When a governmental commission needs a single-bullet myth to cover up a state crime, we know it produces it. When it needs some red herrings to cover up a state crime, they will come up with oceans of them.

[John Simkin]

Interesting article by Sibel Edmonds:

http://www.justacitizen.org/articles_docum...I%20&%20911.htm

FBI & 9/11

By Sibel Edmonds

Over four years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden.

This asset/informant was previously a high- level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanis-tan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that: 1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes, 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States, 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months.

The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing '302' forms, and the translator, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge, Thomas Frields, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to ‘keep quiet' regarding this issue.

The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incid-ent to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General. The press reported this incident, and in fact the report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004 stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001, and further, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to Director Mueller

that he (Mueller) was surprised that the Commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing.

Mr. Sarshar reported this issue to the 9/11 Commission on February 12, 2004, and provided them with specific dates, location, witness names, and the contact information for that particular Iranian asset and the two special agents who received the information.

I provided the 9/11 Commission with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses, and documents I had seen. Mr. Sarshar also provided the Department of Justice Inspector General with specific information regarding this case.

For almost four years since September 11, officials refused to admit to having specific information regarding the terrorists' plans to attack the United States. The Phoenix Memo, received months prior to the 9/11 attacks, spec-ifically warned FBI HQ of pilot training and their possible link to terrorist activities against the United States. Four months prior to the terrorist attacks the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the ‘use of airplanes', ‘major US cities as targets', and ‘Osama Bin Laden issuing the order. ' Coleen Rowley likewise

reported that specific information had been provided to FBI HQ. All this information went to the same place: FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the FBI Washington Field Office, in Washington DC.

In October 2001, approximately one month after the September 11 attack, an agent from (city name omitted) field office, re-sent a certain document to the FBI Washington Field Office, so that it could be re-translated. This Special Agent, in light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, rightfully believed that, considering his target of investigation (the susp-ect under surveillance), and the issues involved, the original translation might have missed certain information that could prove to be valuable in the investigation of terrorist activities. After this document was received by the FBI Washington Field Office and retranslated verbatim, the field agent's hunch appeared to be correct. The new transl-ation revealed certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas (country name omitted). It also revealed certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery.

However, after the re-translation was completed and the new significant information was revealed, the unit supervisor in charge of certain Middle Eastern languages, Mike Feghali, decided NOT to send the re-translated information to the Special Agent who had requested it. Instead, this supervisor decided to send this agent a note stating that the translation was reviewed and that the original translation was accurate. This supervisor, Mike Feghali, stated that sending the accurate translation would hurt the original translator and would cause problems for the FBI language department.

The FBI agent requesting the retranslation never received the accurate translation of that document. I provided this information to the 9/11 Commission on February 132, 2004, and to the Department of Justice Inspector General in May 2002.

The latest buzz topic regarding intelligence is the problem of sharing information, intelligence, within intelligence agencies and between intelligence agencies. To this date the public has not been told of intentional blocking of intelligence, and has not been told that certain information, despite its direct links, impacts and ties to terrorist related activities, is not given to or shared with Counterterrorism units, their investigations, and countering terrorism related activities. This was the case prior to 9/11, and remains in effect after 9/11.

If Counterintelligence receives information that contains money laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal drug activi-ties, directly linked to terrorist activities; and if that information involves certain nations, certain semi-legit organiz-ations, and ties to certain lucrative or political relations in this country, then, that information is not shared with Counterterrorism, regardless of the possible severe consequences.

In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents cited ‘direct pressure by the State Department,' and in other cases ‘sensitive diplomatic relations' is cited. I provided the Department of Justice Inspector General and the 9/11 Commission with detailed and specific information and evidence regarding this issue, and the names of other witnesses willing to cor-roborate this, and the names of certain U.S. officials involved in these transactions and activities.

Now, after almost 4 years, we get to hear new bits & pieces: FBI & Midhar's Case; FBI & Abdel-Hafiz Case; FBI & Saudi planes leaving just days after 9/11 without having the passengers questioned; FBI & Youssef Case; and the list goes on.

Today, after nearly four years since 9/11, the American people still do not know that thousands of lives can be jeop-ardized under the unspoken policy of ‘protecting certain foreign business relations.' The victims' family members still do not realize that information and answers they have sought relentlessly for almost 4 years has been blocked due to the unspoken decisions made and disguised under ‘safeguarding certain diplomatic relations.'

Where is the so-called congressional oversight? Why the 9/11 Commission intentionally omitted this info; although they've had it all along? Where is accountability?

[Robert Howard]

Interesting article by Sibel Edmonds:

http://www.justacitizen.org/articles_docum...I%20&%20911.htm

FBI & 9/11

By Sibel Edmonds

Over four years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden.

This asset/informant was previously a high- level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanis-tan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that: 1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes, 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States, 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months.

The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing '302' forms, and the translator, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge, Thomas Frields, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to ‘keep quiet' regarding this issue.

The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incid-ent to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General. The press reported this incident, and in fact the report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004 stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001, and further, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to Director Mueller

that he (Mueller) was surprised that the Commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing.

Mr. Sarshar reported this issue to the 9/11 Commission on February 12, 2004, and provided them with specific dates, location, witness names, and the contact information for that particular Iranian asset and the two special agents who received the information.

I provided the 9/11 Commission with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses, and documents I had seen. Mr. Sarshar also provided the Department of Justice Inspector General with specific information regarding this case.

For almost four years since September 11, officials refused to admit to having specific information regarding the terrorists' plans to attack the United States. The Phoenix Memo, received months prior to the 9/11 attacks, spec-ifically warned FBI HQ of pilot training and their possible link to terrorist activities against the United States. Four months prior to the terrorist attacks the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the ‘use  of airplanes', ‘major US cities as targets', and ‘Osama Bin Laden issuing the order. ' Coleen Rowley likewise

reported that specific information had been provided to FBI HQ.  All this information went to the same place: FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the FBI Washington Field Office, in Washington DC.

In October 2001, approximately one month after the September 11 attack, an agent from (city name omitted) field office, re-sent a certain document to the FBI Washington Field Office, so that it could be re-translated. This Special Agent, in light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, rightfully believed that, considering his target of investigation (the susp-ect under surveillance), and the issues involved, the original translation might have missed certain information that could prove to be valuable in the investigation of terrorist activities. After this document was received by the FBI Washington Field Office and retranslated verbatim, the field agent's hunch appeared to be correct. The new transl-ation revealed certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas (country name omitted). It also revealed certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery.

However, after the re-translation was completed and the new significant information was revealed, the unit supervisor in charge of certain Middle Eastern languages, Mike Feghali, decided NOT to send the re-translated information to the Special Agent who had requested it. Instead, this supervisor decided to send this agent a note stating that the translation was reviewed and that the original translation was accurate. This supervisor, Mike Feghali, stated that sending the accurate translation would hurt the original translator and would cause problems for the FBI language department.

The FBI agent requesting the retranslation never received the accurate translation of that document. I provided this information to the 9/11 Commission on February 132, 2004, and to the Department of Justice Inspector General in May 2002.

The latest buzz topic regarding intelligence is the problem of sharing information, intelligence, within intelligence agencies and between intelligence agencies. To this date the public has not been told of intentional blocking of intelligence, and has not been told that certain information, despite its direct links, impacts and ties to terrorist related activities, is not given to or shared with Counterterrorism units, their investigations, and countering terrorism related activities. This was the case prior to 9/11, and remains in effect after 9/11.

If Counterintelligence receives information that contains money laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal drug activi-ties, directly linked to terrorist activities; and if that information involves certain nations, certain semi-legit organiz-ations, and ties to certain lucrative or political relations in this country, then, that information is not shared with Counterterrorism, regardless of the possible severe consequences.

In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents cited ‘direct pressure by the State Department,' and in other cases ‘sensitive diplomatic relations' is cited. I provided the Department of Justice Inspector General and the 9/11 Commission with detailed and specific information and evidence regarding this issue, and the names of other witnesses willing to cor-roborate this, and the names of certain U.S. officials involved in these transactions and activities.

Now, after almost 4 years, we get to hear new bits & pieces: FBI & Midhar's Case; FBI & Abdel-Hafiz Case; FBI & Saudi planes leaving just days after 9/11 without having the passengers questioned; FBI & Youssef Case; and the list goes on.

Today, after nearly four years since 9/11, the American people still do not know that thousands of lives can be jeop-ardized under the unspoken policy of ‘protecting certain foreign business relations.' The victims' family members still do not realize that information and answers they have sought relentlessly for almost 4 years has been blocked due to the unspoken decisions made and disguised under ‘safeguarding certain diplomatic relations.'

Where is the so-called congressional oversight? Why the 9/11 Commission intentionally omitted this info; although they've had it all along? Where is accountability?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would suggest this administration has no interest in accountabilty, and that many Americans prefer the daily dribble from the major media, which for years has conspicuously avoided controversial subjects like this one (The 2000 election farce being another), controversy is percieved as bad unless it has something to do with advancing the agenda of the Republican Party or attacking John Kerry.

[Jack White]

(THE HEADER SHOULD HAVE SAID WTC, NOT 911, BUT HEADERS

ARE NOT CORRECTABLE!)

For months now, sorting through 1000s of images, I have

been working on my studies of 9-11 in Manhattan. The

first ten pages of my WTC studies are now online at

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies109.htm

More will be added as I complete them. I am concentrating

largely on the little known destruction of buildings 6 and 7.

I am interested in comments.

Jack

Edited October 2, 2005 by Jack White

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Jack.

there is nothing new in a Government that degenerates into tyranny & plunder, or who use the tools of fear, the "strategy of tension," to keep the people confused & ready to accept policies that they would never otherwise desire. There is nothing new about a government that allowed an attack on its own people for political and economic gain. the list of historical precedants for both "False Flag" terror attacks and false"Casus Belli" is both long and sorrowful, both in America, and around the World. The USA is not unique in using these tactics, they are as old as the Human Race. All the best, Steve.

IF ONLY..

Edited October 4, 2005 by Stephen Turner

[Steve Ulman]

Jack-

On page three the last two sentences you state:

“The entire sequence lasts just a few seconds, and the part showing the intense fire lasts only three seconds, and is mostly outside the building. After that, all smoke came from the burning interior…yet the official story is that intense fire melted the building steel structure to cause the collapse!”

The official story doesn’t state that the fires “melted” the steel – just weakened it enough to cause the collapse. I assume that you are going to provide evidence the interior fires were not intense enough to cause the damaged floor structures to weaken and deflect enough to cause the progressive collapse.

Also, please provide a link to where you got the screen captures from the CNN feed on Page 8. If you check, I believe you’ll find that the footage is of the collapse of WTC-2, not at 9:03 AM, and the dust cloud near WTC-7 is caused by the collapse of WTC-2.

[Jack White]

Jack-

On page three the last two sentences you state:

“The entire sequence lasts just a few seconds, and the part showing the intense fire lasts only three seconds, and is mostly outside the building. After that, all smoke came from the burning interior…yet the official story is that intense fire melted the building steel structure to cause the collapse!”

The official story doesn’t state that the fires “melted” the steel – just weakened it enough to cause the collapse. I assume that you are going to provide evidence the interior fires were not intense enough to cause the damaged floor structures to weaken and deflect enough to cause the progressive collapse.

Also, please provide a link to where you got the screen captures from the CNN feed on Page 8. If you check, I believe you’ll find that the footage is of the collapse of WTC-2, not at 9:03 AM, and the dust cloud near WTC-7 is caused by the collapse of WTC-2.

Thanks for taking a look, Steve.

It depends on which "version" of the official story you mean. The Commission Report?

The immediate news reports? There are several versions? First reports said the

extreme temperatures MELTED the steel. MOLTEN STEEL was found in the basements

days later.

I have thoroughly checked all available sources on the CNN tape. The CNN logs show

the video to be at 9:04, one minute after the South Tower was hit.

If you study the pages, you will find the main point I make is that AT THE TIME OF

THE CNN FILM, BOTH TOWERS CAN BE SEEN STILL STANDING! So your presumption

is IMPOSSIBLE. The ground level shot from West Street shows the explosion at street

level. If you compare with the actual footage of the South tower, there is NO SIMILARITY.

Thanks for your comments.

Jack

[Dawn Meredith]

Great job Jack. It's very hard for me to believe the official version, that the towers just fell.

Now we hear our fearless leader talking about a killer flu outbreak and utilizing the military.

Local muckraker Alex Jones' site inforwars.com has been down for a few days now. Word has it

he's been shut up. Alex was one of the first to question the official story of 9-11.

And to warn us why it happened.

Are the alleged "FEMA camps" next?

I have an old conspiracy-aware friend who will not allow me to send him anything

conspiracy related. To live in fear and silence is to be already dead.

Dawn

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Jack, I should have said in my earlier post, (please excuse my bad manners) thanks for posting this interesting footage, I shall study it some more and post further questions, comments. regards, Steve.

[Jack White]

Jack, I should have said in my earlier post, (please excuse my bad manners) thanks for posting this interesting footage, I shall study it some more and post further questions, comments. regards, Steve.

Thanks, Steve. I am working on additional pages,

but the owner of the site is away for two weeks on

business and not accepting emails. So check back

in about 3 weeks for additional studies.

Jack