9/11 military tapes released - Pentagon lied to the 9/11 commission

[fela fan]

I trust the government about as far as I can throw a matress up a spiral staircase.

But this dosen't mean that I then blindly accept any dodgy conspiracy theory going either.

The trick is to look at actual evidence, rather than speculation and theory.

I I I I I.

Hey guess what, no-one here blindly accepts dodgy conspiracy theories. It's all in your imagination.

And you are somewhat green. That is not the trick. There is no evidence for any of us. All we have is speculation and theory. Even you. Even if you say you don't, you manage quite successfully to declare it was not an inside job.

Where's your fucking evidence mate? Why are you speculating? Why are you telling others they mustn't do what you glaringly do yourself?

Massive twat i'm afraid.

 

[fela fan]

and in addition i think that every point is a reasonable question to ask. who would disagree with this? i hope at least this can be agreed upon.

Mate, nothing can be agreed upon on this topic on this site. Kudos for trying, but eventually these know-it-alls will wear you down. They don't debate, they obsess over their targets. One of which is you!

One truism about them all, tarranau, editor et al, whatever they accuse you of, they are guilty themselves of. Interestingly this is a common psychological phenomenon that plays itself out very nicely on these threads here.

 

[fela fan]

Debate? You're not even being honest woth yourself, let alone the other contributors to this thread.

Hey you sitting up there in the clouds on your judgmental throne: who the fuck are you? You've mentioned countless times on this thread that squeegee is a liar and not honest blah blah blah.

In britain that is one of the worst things to level at anyone. Squeegee hits the heights of honesty that you could never possibly aspire to, hence your disgraceful below-the-belt accusations.

You, the great high one that says honest admissions would gain more charity from you, are a nasty character.

Guess what hypocrite? Life does not revolve around you.

 

[fela fan]

I was merely observing that that is exactly what you appear to be doing.

Not observing dear boy, passing judgment. Through your own filter.

Gain awareness of said filter and improve yourself...

Go on, do it man. See how things change.

 

[Lock&Light]

You seem to be talking to yourself, fela.

 

[detective-boy]

You seem to be talking to yourself, fela.

Ain't that the truth!

And in terms of content as well as unbroken sequence of posts ... Good skills!

 

[squeegee]

Section 44

the point I was trying to make earlier was that the police had no right to search me or to take my name and address. I told them that I was a journalist and that I believed that Section 44 did not give them the riight to search me. But they insisted (through their ignorance wilful or otherwise of one of the most severe infringements on our civil liberties in recent years) on searching me, and if I had refused I would have been arrested as happened with violence to a female activist in Edinburgh who refused to be searched. And there are other exemptions to section 44, including any disclosure that might contravene an individual's adherence to any part of the Human Rights Act (that the government and the media are in the process of dismantling since it has become an inconvenience to them - just like parliament square protestor brian haw)

so how are we to live when trained police offciers patrolling a major airport in london, do not abide by even the most basic of the recent terror laws. There was no reasnable cause to suspect i was a terrorist, unless you think a 30+ man walking on his own in an airport is reasonable cause to suspect terrorist intent.

you see either that's lazy policing, sheer incompetence, police officers falling for the hype that anyone not anglo-saxon with a suit on must be up to no good, or its a directive from the home office to increase the pressure on the people to conform.

i gave them my name, address and details and they did seem almost apologetic to have to be doing what they were doing.

but the fact remains, according to the letter of the law, they overstepped their boundaries and if that is replicated throughout London it means we are edging ever-closer to a gestapo-like city.

ver are your papers indeed.

so tell me detective-boy, do you think that's common practice at the moment in london and do you think that's a government directive, sheer incompetence, or prejudice of some kind?

tough choice

 

[squeegee]

in the interests of absolute accuracy now that i recall it, they did not physically search me, but they did say that i had to give my name and address. They asked me to show them id, which again i mentioned i was not obliged to do, but they insisted.

anyway, i know this is going off topic, but it kinda isn't cos it still boils down to how the security services can suffer from incompetence, but how it could also be, like the suggestions about abu graib, that the directives come from high up in office.

and that even the suggested incompetence surrounding 911 could have been manipulated by those with access to that kind of security clearance. ie someone in goverment. no proof for this so please don't ask, just a reasonable suggestion, given that the UK/US governments are acknowledged liars and alleged murderers.

now i'm not wishing to connect abu graib and the abuse of section 44 in any other way than to show that the chain of command is an essential part of the functioning of an army or security unit of any kind and that leaves them open to manipulation from above.

cos the plans from up above filter down to the ground...

..."But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

[pk]

They were mate. But there seems an alarming amount of posters who are here these days to effectively give us the state's angle on things.

If we want that shit, surely we can pick up any of the mainstream media, their official mouth organ...

Simple answer to that fela fan... fuck off from here if you don't like it anymore - same goes for the rest of the whingers.

 

[Blagsta]

I I I I I.

Hey guess what, no-one here blindly accepts dodgy conspiracy theories. It's all in your imagination.

And you are somewhat green. That is not the trick. There is no evidence for any of us. All we have is speculation and theory. Even you. Even if you say you don't, you manage quite successfully to declare it was not an inside job.

Where's your fucking evidence mate? Why are you speculating? Why are you telling others they mustn't do what you glaringly do yourself?

Massive twat i'm afraid.

tosser

 

[Blagsta]

Interestingly this is a common psychological phenomenon that plays itself out very nicely on these threads here.

The irony is that fela doesn't think this applies to him.

 

[detective-boy]

Section 44

the point I was trying to make earlier was that the police had no right to search me

But they did. Even the site you link to says that. Why do say they didn't?

The site also gives the absolute meaning of various rights, but it doesn't explain what else may happen if you don't do certain things. For instance, there is no obligation to give your name and address. But, if you don't, that MAY add to suspicions that the officers already have and it MAY mean that they choose to arrest you, where providing your name and address MAY have removed their suspicions. You don't have to tell them your job ... but you chose to, presumably for the same sort of reason. There is a difference between absolute rights and dealing with the infinite variations in an actual interaction. People need to not only know their rights, but understand the context in which they may be used and the other things that may be happening simultaneously.

The site also gives information which, so far as I can see, is wrong. They state that there is no power for an officer to search into pockets. But PACE Code of Practice A 3.5 (which governs how searches are to be carried out, states:

A search in public of a person’s clothing which has not been removed
must be restricted to superficial examination of outer garments. This does not, however, prevent an officer from placing his or her hand inside the pockets of the outer clothing, or feeling round the inside of collars, socks and shoes if this is reasonably necessary in the circumstances to look for the object of the search or to remove and examine any item reasonably suspected to be the object of the search.

Common sense would suggest that this MUST be the case, because otherwise and officer suspecting that you had a gun in your pocket would be forced to ask YOU to take it out - hardly a wise move!

As the officers DO have power to search you, any resistance (which is NO recommended by the LIberty site) MAY amount to obstructing an officer in the course of their duty and MAY (and probably would) result in them arresting you for that.

I have contacted the site to ask for clarification.

You clearly have littel or no understanding of the law as you go on to say:

And there are other exemptions to section 44, including any disclosure that might contravene an individual's adherence to any part of the Human Rights Act (that the government and the media are in the process of dismantling since it has become an inconvenience to them - just like parliament square protestor brian haw)

which, to be quite frank, is an incoherent rant. If you had the faintest idea what you were talking about you would ot refer to the "individuals adherence" to the Human Rights Act because it provides obligations ONLY for public authorities, not individuals.

You go on about how:

"There was no reasnable cause to suspect i was a terrorist, unless you think a 30+ man walking on his own in an airport is reasonable cause to suspect terrorist intent."

Why? What does a terrorist look/behave like? (This is exactly the argument people have against any sort of profiling). And, for the second time, the whole point of an authorisation under s.44 is that there is NO NEED FOR ANY SUSPICION. Whilst the authorisation is in force, ANYONE can be stopped and searched for items for use in terrorism without any further grounds being needed.

If you want to challenge the laws which exist - and I believe some of them are excessive (see my earlier post about s.44 which you do not appear to have read) - can I suggest that you learn what they actually say and do first. Otherwise you will be dismissed as an ignorant ranter.[/QUOTE]

 

[squeegee]

there you go again. just as i thought you were about to have a decent debate with me on this you post your inferences from the law based on what you see as your impeccable (but mistaken) knowledge let you down. your last post demonstrates your lack of comprehension about the human rights law or section 44, which is now ostensibly the old sus law. anyone and everyone is under suspicion. if i refuse to give name and address on a point of principle i become a suspect. no i haven't read your s.44 piece but judging by your last post, it wouldn't be worth my while. you've got the brawn and the experience on the front line, but you seem to have no idea why human rights are there in the first place and how easily we can slip into tyranny and a police state. and if you can't see that then it's nigh impossible to reason with you. ignorance and arrogance can be a dangerous mixture.

but your first sentence was totally wrong and then you contradicted yourself a few sentences later. so you're a bit muddled too. i gave my name and address but in doing so i surrendered my human right to refuse and i surrendered my legal right to refuse. never mind you more or less saying tough that's the way it's got to be. no, that's not the way it's got to be.

and you see that's the problem. those who think there are prices worth paying end up justiftying the killing of innocent people because of an ideology that is considered noble. and it ends up justifying atrocities until it reaches a point where people are not willing to sacrifice and be sacrificed on the say so of "authority". Whose authority? The authority of force? Do it my way or else. The people have always resisted this type of control and are doing so again. Yet this type of control is on the increase everywhere and some people can't see the implications.

i'm not trying to make a big deal out of it or claiming any mystical power. but you are wrong on this, and your added unprovoked abuse (someone sharing a point of view about an incident he went through does not count as provocation – in fact quite the opposite; for you to throw out insults doesn't put you in a good light either) also shows you up to be an unpleasant character as well.

but i forgive you cos i know you're not aware of how deeply unpleasant you sound, and how ably you demonstrate your inability to comprehend or read between the lines on what this war on terror is about. it's all literal and experiential with you but imagination is stifled. think about id cards and think how easily that information will be abused by people in "authority" for their own political ends, and then think about whether you believe the public will buy it or whether they will see through the scam finally and tell them where to stick their id cards and their government

vive la révolution hombre, hasta la victoria siempre

 

[squeegee]

"A search in public of a person’s clothing which has not been removed
must be restricted to superficial examination of outer garments. This does not, however, prevent an officer from placing his or her hand inside the pockets of the outer clothing, or feeling round the inside of collars, socks and shoes if this is reasonably necessary in the circumstances to look for the object of the search or to remove and examine any item reasonably suspected to be the object of the search."

you're nicked me ol' son

 

[detective-boy]

there you go again. <snip incoherent bollocks>

Whatever.

 

[look again]

Well, what gets you your cries of conspiraloon is your apparent ready-made-up mind about the whole thing. I mean, could you be persuaded that it really was islamist terrorists slipping under the noses of a complacent US security? (which is, I presume we can all agree, the 'mainstream' view?)

This right here is exactly what the US government, with huge help from the mainstream media, has managed to do.

What about all the numerous lies they have told to achieve this objective?

 

[Jazzz]

E2A: As thermite doesn't explode, it mearly burns very hot, what causes the windows to blow out for the white Al2O3 'ash' to blast out of?

I understand that thermate - the variation of thermite with added sulphur does in fact explode. However I think that another explosive was used for the final detonation - the thermate was for weakening the steel structure.

 

[Jazzz]

And that the alleged samples were taken (apparently) from a statue implying that the metal was melted again and then reshaped elsewhere, almost certainly picking up even more impurities!

Jazzz really needs to get a handle on the whole science thing.

No, not the case, if you are willing to get a handle on the research yourself by listening to Professor Steve Jones' audio interview.

(1 hour)

 

[Jonti]

Uhhh, thanks for the link to the Steve Jones audio interview. Could be interesting to some folks, I guess. But Brits should be aware that when you call him a "Professor" you are using the word in the American, and not the British sense. He does not hold a University Chair, he's what we'd call a lecturer.

And (pardon me) -- the catastrophic collapse of WTC1/2/7 is not the topic of the thread.

The proven mendacity of Rumsfeld's Pentagon, and the significance of that treasonous attitude, is what we are (supposed to be) discussing

 

[pk]

prisonplanet again eh Jazzz?

Are they still going on about cruise missiles hitting the Pentagon?

In spite of clear imagery indicating the American Airlines jet hit it?

 

[Jonti]

Ok, so let's see the impartial, independant investigation or proof that these trades were dodgy. If you can't proove it either way then you have to discount it as evidence. Surely there must be some financial analysts who can be trusted to an extent worthy of investigating this? Or are they all covering each other's backs?

The 9/11 Commission, after looking into the pre-9/11 stock trades, accepted they were unusual. That is an established fact in a sea of rhetoric.

The Commission went on to claim that the unusual trading pattern was unrelated to any foreknowledge of the attack...

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.

Lucky for some, huh? This appears to be the response to Mindy Kleinberg's evidence to the Commission

On the Chicago Board Options Exchange during the week before September 11th, put options were purchased on American and United Airlines, the two airlines involved in the attacks. The investors who placed these orders were gambling that in the short term the stock prices of both Airlines would plummet. Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11th attacks.

Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account.

The trouble with the 9/11 Commissions response to Kleinberg's concerns is that they don't identify the investor; or show a copy of the Newsletter. That makes it hard to assess whether their conclusion is sound. Worse, this is not the full extent of the (prima-facie) dodgy dealing. As one might expect, there was much more going on than just those two. They are just the first point in this list ...

• Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines
• Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group
• Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of recorded by several financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America
• Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon
• Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes

source

It may be worth remembering that the chief suspect, Mr Osama bin Laden, was an extremely wealthy individual, a billionaire. It would be silly to imagine he and his cronies were blind to the financial consequences of the attacks. It is at least plausible they would find a way to ride the markets to make a killing in the aftermath of the attacks in the safe knowledge that diverse financial instruments and banking secrecy laws, particularly in Europe, could be exploited to make the trail impossible to follow.

 

[Jonti]

But, if such involvement did turn out to be true, would you characterise it as "the State" being involved or "an individual / small group of out-of-control lunatics who happened to be in State employ"?

To get an answer to this question, one would first need to define "the State". The members of the Government do not collectively comprise "the State".

Could there be highly placed members of the Government willing to manipulate the State for their own ends? Oooh, that's a stretch, but I guess so.

But, sure, yeah, I think we can assume there will be a degree of deniability. Crime bosses like deniability

 

[WouldBe]

I understand that thermate - the variation of thermite with added sulphur does in fact explode. However I think that another explosive was used for the final detonation - the thermate was for weakening the steel structure.

No thermate doesn't explode.

Why got to the trouble of planting thermate and an other explosive to bring the towers down when there are plenty of explosives around that would blast through the steel with no problems?

And if thermate was used why is there no traces of Aluminium or Barium in the steel thet was sampled?

 

[Crispy]

It may be worth remembering that the chief suspect, Mr Osama bin Laden, was an extremely wealthy individual, a billionaire. It would be silly to imagine he and his cronies were blind to the financial consequences of the attacks. It is at least plausible they would find a way to ride the markets to make a killing in the aftermath of the attacks in the safe knowledge that diverse financial instruments and banking secrecy laws, particularly in Europe, could be exploited to make the trail impossible to follow.

This would be my guess at the truth behind this one. But if the $5m remained unclaimed, either someone fucked up, or the spooks moved quickly and prevented the money moving. Who knows.

 

[phildwyer]

It may be worth remembering that the chief suspect, Mr Osama bin Laden, was an extremely wealthy individual, a billionaire. It would be silly to imagine he and his cronies were blind to the financial consequences of the attacks. It is at least plausible they would find a way to ride the markets to make a killing in the aftermath of the attacks in the safe knowledge that diverse financial instruments and banking secrecy laws, particularly in Europe, could be exploited to make the trail impossible to follow.

Hang on a minute, you're seriously suggesting that Bin Laden cares about money? Where's he going to spend it, Miami Beach?

 

[Jazzz]

No thermate doesn't explode.

Why got to the trouble of planting thermate and an other explosive to bring the towers down when there are plenty of explosives around that would blast through the steel with no problems?

And if thermate was used why is there no traces of Aluminium or Barium in the steel thet was sampled?

When controlled demolitions are done they use with explosives that go bang. However what they also do is cut the load bearing steel by as much as can be got away with, so that the need for the final explosive is minimised. This is presumably exactly what happened with the WTC - thermate was used perform this cutting task. Obviously, the more powerful the final explosives, the more noticeable it is going to be that explosives are present, and the more forced the collapse would look.

 

[Jazzz]

prisonplanet again eh Jazzz?

Are they still going on about cruise missiles hitting the Pentagon?

In spite of clear imagery indicating the American Airlines jet hit it?

Two pieces of wreckage, neither of which have been officially identified as from flight 77, and indeed the lettering looks WAY too small.

 

[WouldBe]

However what they also do is cut the load bearing steel by as much as can be got away with, so that the need for the final explosive is minimised.

Funny but when army engineers bring down a steel girder bridge they don't cut the steel at all. It's simply brought down by the force of the explosive.

Even if this was the case why is there no traces of Aluminium or Barium in the sample that were analysed?

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Re "insider trading" bollocks

At that time world markets were in the middle of a very very serious bear market . . .

"Recall, as well, the mood of the summer of 2001. By early September, the airline industry was in the doldrums after the dot.com meltdown hit business and vacation travel. On September 5, meanwhile, Reuters, the news service widely followed by Wall Streeters, quoted analysts as saying that "a further deterioration" in airline financials was probable. Translation: Bail out now, boys. Matters were not helped by AMR's announcement two days later that its third- and fourth-quarter losses would be larger even than already forecast. Immediately, airline analysts downgraded AMR, as did hotel specialists, and a wave of shorting hit the travel industry (people even took positions in Royal Caribbean Cruise lines and Cruise Lines Carnival Corps)."

While you're clearly not totally au fait with how derivatives work Jonti, why on earth would some this same insider insider "[buy] 115,000 shares of American on September 10"?? Answer : this actually make it much more likely that it was an institutional trade (ie buy stock + buy protection)

Munich Re : "And as for Munich Re, the stock had been dropping since the beginning of September, and a week before September 11, two brokerages cut their ratings on the firm owing to their concerns about deterioration in the capital markets."

source : http://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose200407260700.asp with some detailed analysis of these positions.


Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, these (options & stock) are all exchange traded instrumnents. This means that they are purchased through a registerd broker who, in turn purchases them through on regulated exchange. The paper trail on this sort of transaction leading to the ultimate beneficiary is totally transparent. End Of.

 

[Blagsta]

and indeed the lettering looks WAY too small.

'cos you're the expert, right?