Tuesday, October 17, 2006


BY TvNews LIES .ORG - April - 2005

Some things are so disturbing that they are almost impossible to believe. That is why, in the 9/11 enigma, less is more.

Until these questions are answered there is no need to establish more doubt. What we have here is solid undisputed evidence that we were never told the truth.

Before you read this article, conduct this test. Try to purchase some stock, or some futures, a mutual fund or some put options, without providing your identity. Go ahead and try it! See if you get anywhere. Find out what happens when you tell the investment firm that you want to make a huge investment anonymously. It can't be done.

Then ask yourself this question: How could someone have placed anonymous put options on American Airlines and United Airlines just prior to the attacks of 9/11? Then ask yourself why no one has investigated this suspicious deal. Ask yourself why there has been no attempt by the US government to identify the person who anticipated huge profits from a disaster that was yet to occur. Is it because the trail possibly leads to the CIA?

Then wonder about the collapse of Building 7 on the day of the attacks. Ask yourself why the owner of the building allowed the building to be pulled down (intentionally demolished) hours after the Twin Towers fell. Pulling down a building takes weeks of planning and preparation so that explosives can be safely positioned and wired. Not so in this case. Wonder why.

If you have any doubts at all about the official 9/11 story, then the answers to these questions are all the proof you need that something is very, very wrong!

Independent 9/11 researchers have worked nonstop since the events to examine the events of 9/11 and they have uncovered enough information to seriously challenge the official versions of what happened on that fateful day. But maybe, just maybe, the very fact that massive amounts of information are available is a problem in itself. There may be far too much evidence for most Americans to face.

The challenges to the official stories may be too devastating to be processed by the average American who has spent a lifetime believing in the system. Many people can deal with the minor violations that are part of the political scene, but cannot possibly fathom a government that might be complicit in an attack on its own people. They are not unlike the parents who eventually come to terms with a child's shoplifting spree. The same parents would do anything to deny far more serious accusations. Imagine the response of parents whose son turns out to be a Timothy McVeigh.

Some things are so disturbing that they are almost impossible to believe. That is why, in the 9/11 enigma, less is more. There is a real danger of frightening everyone off by offering too much information. Therefore, if we think of the problem as a chess game, two strategic moves can lead to checkmate.

There are two pieces of the 9/11 puzzle that on their own expose the lies of the administration.

Two questions must be raised so that even the most diehard Bush supporters realize they have been deceived. These are issues that no one can debate or dismiss. These are not conspiracy theories. They are fact-based questions that can lead to exposing the deceptions in the official reports. The apologists have no way to explain these away or justify them. Basically, they offer clear evidence that the official explanations of 9/11 are meaningless.




Someone had foreknowledge of the attacks. In the weeks leading up to 9/11 someone made a series of investments that would have paid off in huge profits because of the attacks. This is well documented and undisputed. This person specifically invested in the two airliners used in the attacks, anticipating windfall profits from any drop in the stock prices of these companies. This is solid evidence that at least one person in the United States had detailed information that something bad was going to happen to the specific airlines that were to be used in the attack.

We have been told that the person who made these investments never claimed the profits. We are expected to believe that this explains why his or her identity is unavailable. This is absolutely untrue. This is not an instance in which someone was waiting to pick up a package at an airport locker. This is a case of a financial institution processing an investment transaction for an individual. This CAN NOT BE PERFORMED ANONYMOUSLY! The identity of this person who had foreknowledge of the attack is know and this person's identity is being protected by our government and this is a fact! Period, end of story.

WHO MADE THE INVESTMENT? Identify this person and you have someone who very probably had detailed foreknowledge of the events. The fact that the profits were never collected is even more suspicious and incriminating. The fact that the identity of this person remains unknown is even more suspicious. The only possible conclusion is that this person is known to the government and that his or her identity is being protected.

There has been a clear and concerted cover up regarding the person who tried to profit from events he or she knew were coming. The people who could easily clear this up, but who chose to close any further investigation into the matter are not underlings. They are officials who answer directly to the President of the United States. Check.


On September 11th, Towers One and Two collapsed after suffering direct hits by airliners. Building 7 was neither hit by an airliner nor damaged severely by flying debris, but at 5:20 p.m. it collapsed in the exact same accordion style of the other two towers. The official explanation by FEMA investigators claimed that WTC 7 fell as a result of burning for 7 hours.

Several weeks after the events of 9/11, Larry Silverstein, the new owner of the WTC was interviewed on TV. At this time he openly acknowledged the decision to pull Building 7. This was a public statement in which the owner of the WTC agreed to the destruction of the building.

This decision was never explained and was never questioned by the Kean Commission. The conflicting report of the FEMA investigators was also never explained. Pulling a building requires weeks, if not months of preparation. Explosives have to be carefully and strategically placed and wired. How was it possible to pull a building without first preparing for its demolition?

Larry Silverstein invested $386 million in WTC 7. On 9/11, by his own admission, Larry Silverstein ordered the demolition of his building . In February of 2002, his company won a settlement of $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers. Do the math. No one investigated. This is a confession to the demolition of Building 7. Let me repeat that, THIS IS A CONFESSION! Checkmate.

Until these questions are answered there is no need to establish more doubt. What we have here is solid undisputed evidence that we were never told the truth. We have solid evidence that the official investigation stopped short of delving into questions that could have supplied answers. We have solid proof that something is very, very wrong.

There is a mountain of unanswered questions concerning the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks. Anyone willing to listen or look at the inconsistencies would have to draw an obvious conclusion: the official explanation of the events of 9/11 is nothing more than a desperate attempt to distract the American people from investigating the truth. There can be no denying that there are a number of strange and puzzling occurrences that have never been, and seemingly cannot be explained.

Perhaps the abundance of startling and damning information is too incredible to be accepted easily by the millions of Americans who have bought into the corporate media's version of the events. So many people in this country can not deal with, or accept any real challenge to the official explanation that allows for no foreknowledge or cover up by their government. Even if most Americans were to be presented with clearly corroborated facts or cold evidence, they would probably refuse to even consider the involvement of their elected leaders in a tragedy of such huge proportions.

The official story, however, collapses after an examination of the two questions just raised. Very simply put, case closed. We do not need to pull an OJ here and bury the obvious under more evidence than the jury can handle. Show the Bronco chase and the blood evidence, and rest the prosecution. Otherwise we risk badly confusing a jury of the uninformed.

It is vital that the evidence based community encourage the American public to question the events for themselves. Two questions of this magnitude are enough to raise reasonable doubt. Two such questions that have gone uninvestigated and unexplained are enough to arouse curiosity,

We're in a very dangerous game, here, and all of us are players. Much of what happened on September 11th remains at best unclear, and at worst terribly suspicious. The reality that the President of the United States spent more than 18 months resisting an official investigation into the most devastating tragedy in our history is in itself an outrage. But the reality that there is no official body still seeking answers to vital questions is an even greater outrage.

And if that remains the case, we all will have been checkmated, en masse.

Editor's NOTE: People might comment on this article by calling it a conspiracy theory. This is their usual way of dismissing the facts. I ask you, where exactly is there 'theory' on this page? What elements of this article are in dispute? This is not a theory, this article poses questions that have not been answered and the people who call the results of the independent 9/11 research community 'conspiracy theories' have yet to qualify their assertion. You can not simply call something a 'theory' just because you have not looked closely enough to see the facts that have been presented. If you call this a theory you are in denial. Very simply put, you can not debate this issue. Many people will dismiss this, as they do all evidence that goes against what they want to believe, yet when asked what their criteria is for discerning between theory and fact, they will not have a logical answer. This is not theory and neither are the facts that have been brought to light by the many people involved in the legitimate independent 9/11 research community.

SOURCE: 911 Review


At October 17, 2006 1:21 PM, Blogger peacemom said...

NOT TO MISS - the latest editorial by this same editor:



At October 17, 2006 1:23 PM, Blogger qrswave said...

This is awesome!


At October 17, 2006 1:56 PM, Blogger Don Robertson said...

Yes. The financial system's documentation of who knew what, when is clearly there, and available, but no one wants to look.

Doubly so, when the Administration got the call from Ken Lay that ENRON was, as well as so many others were, going down the tubes, these were the hottest stock tips in history. Trillions changed hands very quickly. But no one wanted to look and see who took all the pension money that went up in smoke as the stock price capitulated to the news given to some first who took the "short" position.

No one realises today as gasoline prices plummet, the oil companies and oil executives "in the know" actually benefit because they control the futures market on oil with cheap money provided by the Fed. They made the price rise and they made the prices then fall. And they made even more money as the price fell because it fell so fast. But no one wants to uncover the sheer gall of it all.

That's okay. I've got them all covered as I have laid the seeds for philosophy to conquer the world, again.

The Age of Empirical Thought has finally come to an end.

Read and enjoy. "An Illustrated Philosophy Primer for Young Readers
Precious Life - Empirical Knowledge"

Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
Limestone, Maine

An Illustrated Philosophy Primer for Young Readers
Precious Life - Empirical Knowledge
The Grand Unifying Theory & The Theory of Time
Art Auctions:

At October 17, 2006 2:03 PM, Blogger RenegadeRick said...

I am nervous about posting this with my ID and potentially identifying myself, but I feel what I have to say is important enough that I do so.

I used to work for the Options Clearing Corporation and your statements of being unable to purchase options anonymously are correct. However, the 9-11 commission did not find that they did not know who made these purchases. Rather, they found that the suspicious trades were innocuous. I am not entirely certain that I agree with that conclusion, but I do not have enough evidence to say otherwise.

There is much more to options than Puts and Calls. Other factors are Strike Prices and Expiration Dates.
Someone could profit on a disaster they had foreknowledge of by Selling Calls or by Buying Puts.

The 9-11 commission report states that the same institutional investor that bought approximately 4,000 puts on UAL also bought 115,000 shares of AA, but keep in mind that 4,000 option contracts controls 400,000 shares of stock. Depending upon stock prices and strike prices, it would still likely yield a windfall of profits with the losses in one area being offset by 4x the gain in another. I for one would very much like to know the identities of these investors.

By law, the data of these trades is required to still be archived by the Options Clearing Corporation. The data will indicate which investment firms held these positions and whether they are owned by customers or institutional investors. I am not sure what the statute of limitiations on this data is. Possibly 7 years. The 9-11 truth movement should work to get this data made public before it gets destroyed.

This is from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/notes.pdf on page 499 (51 of 119 in the PDF):
130. Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual
pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact
occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options—
investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price—surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on
September 6 and American Airlines on September 10—highly suspicious trading on its face.Yet, further investigation
has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no
conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy
that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly,much of the seemingly suspicious
trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its
subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.These examples typify the evidence examined
by the investigation.The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous
resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments.These
investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept.
16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10–11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to
SEC Chair and Commissioners,“Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review,”May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview
(Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).

At October 17, 2006 3:39 PM, Blogger beade said...

Just playing Devil's Advocate here but wouldn't going through a blind trust at least give cover to the original source of the investment?

Power of attorney can be easily delegated -- and rather anonymously as far as the original investor(s) is(are) concerned. Of course, when someone mentions "blind trust" the beneficiary most people think of is politician. Hmmm?

Remember, the monies put up pre-9/11 were in the form of put options -- not used to sell short. Thus, placing puts on the affected airlines look a little less than illegitimate. Weren't the airlines involved already in some financial trouble to begin with? "Trouble", as in looking to bankruptcy so as to re-negotiate their union contracts -- slashing wages as well dumping their pension funds on the Feds? But also "legitimate" in the sense that one assumes the air carrier will survive in better financial health rather than go out of business. The "someone" with a put option just doesn't know when that will occur. Good cover for collecting once the heat dies down.

One more Oliver Stone bull crap movie and it just might happen.

I'm really stretching it a bit here (The Devil is no fool) but why couldn't a hedge fund have placed these put option(s)? Take an indefinite-term (i.e., American vs. European) hedge against oil stocks that might be facing decreasing dividends due to a fall in oil prices (very likely leading to an increase air travel). In fact, it seems like a likely scenario. 9/11 did lead to some rise in oil prices and markedly decreased air travel.

I do think the puts had to be placed with premonition at best and inside information at worst. But that "inside" information could have had as much to do with certain air carriers filing for bankruptcy as it did via someone(s) having foreknowledge of the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

Proof is always difficult but the government's lack of curiosity about put options still says a lot about this Administration. Does the public really know about the latitude already built into American-style put options versus their European counterparts? Wouldn't this cause some concern if fully exposed -- particularly as puts are sometimes used as portfolio "floats" during union-busting corporate bankruptcies?

At October 17, 2006 8:05 PM, Blogger Ajay said...

This is something I have wondered a lot about. I have traded futures and options and its routine for SEC to find out about insider trading based on volume of options or some other derivatives.

I did read about the put options soon after 9/11. I am schocked to this day that there has not been any follow up on this. Financial community on Wall street should have picked this up. They had nothing to loose.

This country is nothing more than a propaganda and its citizens are essentially fools, especially the "patriotic" one. One can only hope that democrats will do something about it but I wouldnt be surprised if they ignored it as well. Also, why didnt 9/11 commission pick it up?

At October 17, 2006 11:31 PM, Blogger Trendkillur said...

This whole argument is a logical fallacy. You can't base an inference ("the government lied to us about 9/11") on your own unanswered questions. i.e.:

1. "What are the chances someone would invest in 2 globally traded airliners on 9/10/2001?"


2."Why would someone cut their losses and opt to have their damaged building demolished, without first using standard preparations and procedures, on 9/11 at ground zero?"

...unanswered questions are not evidence. If you look real hard at my cheeky (albeit 'straw-man') paraphrasing you'll find that rational possibilities exist. That being said, neither your argument or my implications are enough to support any solid argument alone...so...

...enroll in your local community college and take some critical thinking courses. Seriously you are all over the place with fallacy...I'd have to write a blog 10 times the length of this just to explain to you all the plethora of misguided logical thought structures you're weilding in this 'piece'.

I don't have a problem with the idea you propose...you may in fact be correct that the goverment lied about 9/11...hell maybe George Bush wipes his ass with the flag, worships hitler and kills kittens for sport...it's possible...

BUT you'd do a greater service to democracy and free thought if you picked up a book on logic...read it...and put a little more work into your delivery... anything less is just supporting your 'enemy'. Get ya learn on foo' !


At October 18, 2006 12:07 AM, Blogger Eric Stewart said...

Actually, trend, the gist of the article (and what it is BASED on) is that it is not possible to make such investments anonymously. How did you miss that?

At October 18, 2006 12:08 AM, Blogger Eric Stewart said...

Your complete avoidance of this speaks for itself, 'trend.' So much for critical thinking.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker