Aviation Companies Blame FBI, CIA And Terrorists For 9/11

The Associated Press / Jon Gold’s Blog: Aviation Companies Blame FBI, CIA And Terrorists For 9/11

NEW YORK: Aviation companies sued by the families of Sept. 11 victims for failing to safeguard air travel are in turn blaming federal investigators — arguing the Federal Aviation Administration was not alerted that al-Qaida was poised to launch terrorist attacks.

In court documents filed this week in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, aviation companies are seeking to force five FBI employees to provide testimony that may help defend against claims the companies share blame in the attacks.

“The aviation parties anticipate that the FBI witnesses’ testimony will demonstrate that the FBI had information before Sept. 11 indicating that al-Qaida may have been about to launch terrorist attacks on civil aviation, which it did not timely pass along to the Federal Aviation Administration,” lawyers wrote. . . .

Glenn Greenwald: Lee Hamilton denies Michael Mukasey’s claim about 9/11

Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com: Lee Hamilton denies Michael Mukasey’s claim about 9/11

I just received the following statement from the Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Rep. Lee Hamilton, in response to my inquiries last week (and numerous follow-up inquiries from readers here) about Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s claims about the 9/11 attack and, specifically, about Mukasey’s story that there was a pre-9/11 telephone call from an “Afghan safe house” into the U.S. that the Bush administration failed to intercept or investigate:

I am unfamiliar with the telephone call that Attorney General Mukasey cited in his appearance in San Francisco on March 27. The 9/11 Commission did not receive any information pertaining to its occurrence.

(…)

9/11 panel vice chair: No record of Mukasey ‘9/11 warning’

The Raw Story: ‘Cover-up’ attempt in offensive costume flap - 9/11 panel vice chair: No record of Mukasey ‘9/11 warning’

The vice chair of the prominent 9/11 Commission is denying Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s claim that the US received a warning before the attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, Salon reports.

“I am unfamiliar with the telephone call that Attorney General Mukasey cited in his appearance in San Francisco on March 27. The 9/11 Commission did not receive any information pertaining to its occurrence,” said former Rep. Lee Hamilton in a statement received by Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, who has closely followed the Mukasey revelation.

Top Democrats demand Attorney General provide 9/11 memorandum

Raw Story: Top Democrats demand Attorney General provide 9/11 memorandum

A letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey demands he explain a recent public statement in favor of warrantless wiretapping that suggests that federal authorities, prior to the 9/11 attacks, failed to intercept a call from suspected terrorists in Afghanistan, when doing so could have prevented the attacks from taking place.

MSNBCs Kieth Olbermann: 9/11-FORHÅNDSKUNNSKAP & Hvordan produsere legender aka “bevis”?

Jøss. Aprilsnarr?

BUSHED!

Keith Olbermann’s report on all of the Bush scandals you may have forgotten about because of the latest Bush scandals that have your head over loaded. Tonight’s: Iraq & 9/11-Gate, Mortgage-Gate and Mukasey Said What-Gate.

… på MSNBC!

Gammel, men god: The 911 Evidence that May Hang George W. Bush

Cheryl Seal, Scoop: The 911 Evidence that May Hang George W. Bush
The Case Against G.W. Bush: a Preliminary “Hearing” in the Court of Common Sense

At the very least Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. But the evidence indicates his guilt involves more than just a huge intentional sin of omission – this now seems certain. So it is ulcer-fomenting to watch him, Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and their PR army try to sell America yet another Big Lie – that they had no idea such a thing as 9/11 could happen…they could never have imagined it in their wildest dreams…they had no specific warnings…there was nothing unusual about the summer 2001 warnings, etc, etc, ad nauseam. I have compiled some material that clearly shows that the above litany is blatantly, arrogantly false. But first, let’s hold a preliminary hearing in the “Court of Common sense”.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0206/S00071.htm

More evidence of Pre-9/11 Inside Trading: Follow the Money? God forbid

More evidence of Pre-9/11 Inside Trading: Follow the Money? God forbid
Why was the cashing out of billions of dollars just before 9/11 never investigated?

by Jim Hogue

Baltimore Chronicle/Global Research, February 10, 2008

Had an investigation been done into the crime of failing to file the “currency transaction reports” in August 2001, then we would know who made the cash withdrawals in $100 bills amounting to the $5 billion surge.

When reviewing the record of July and August of 2001, Bill Bergman noticed a $5 billion surge in the currency component of the M1 money supply—the third largest such increase since 1947. Bergman asked about this anomaly—and was removed from his investigative duties.

It’s been over six years since 9/11, but U.S. regulatory entities have been slow to follow through with reports about the complex financial transactions that occurred just prior to and following the attacks. Such research could shed light on such questions as who was behind them—and who benefited—and could help lay to rest the rumors that have been festering.

(…)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8046

9/11-forhåndskunnskap: Litt om innsidehandel

Hva Allen M. Poteshman (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) sier om den mistenkelige innsidehandelen som fant sted i dagene før 11/9-01:

Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001

After September 11, 2001, there was a great deal of speculation that the terrorists or their associates had traded in the option market on advanced knowledge of the impending attacks. This paper generates systematic information about option market activity that can be used to assess the option trading that precedes any event of interest. Examination of the option trading leading up to September 11 reveals that there was an unusually high level of put buying. This finding is consistent with informed investors having traded options in advance of the attacks.
Consequently, the paper concludes that there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks.
http://www.business.uiuc.edu/poteshma/research/poteshman2006.pdf

***

9/11-kommisjonens forklaring:

“… 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 …” - 9/11-kommisjonens rapport

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

Forutbestemte konklusjoner? Neppe.

Cover-up? Absolutt neppe.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justices kommentar til kommisjonens forklaring:

“This explanation is partial and circular. It is partial because it mentions only “trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted in the attacks” and fails to specify which activity it did examine. It is circular because it claims it traced much of the activity to a US investor with “no conceivable ties to al Qaeda” and thereby concludes that the trades were “innocuous”.”


http://stj911.org/hypotheses/official.html#commission_insider

***

Jan Haugland i sitt stykke “Bedrag, eller selvbedrag? …”:

“Igjen har ikke akkurat KT-bevegelsen svømmet over av finansanalytikere, så det kunne være interessant å se belegget for denne påstanden. Rapportene om “innside-handel” er som vanlig basert på tidlige presseoppslag, og har en helt naturlig forklaring.”

Kanskje ikke bare på “tidlige presseoppslag”, eller…?

Er Jans “helt naturlige forklaring” også at “the investor had no conceivable ties to al Qaeda”?

En helt naturlig (og syltynn ikke-)forklaring.

***

Arkiv med mange relevante nyhetsartikler fra perioden 2001 - 2003:

The Yirmeyahu Review: 9/11 and Insider Trading

URL:
http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/archive/911/insider_trading.htm

Gammel, men høyst interessant artikkel av Michel Chossudovsky: Political Deception - The Missing Link Behind 9-11

NEW REVELATIONS ON 9-11

Was it an `intelligence failure’ to give red carpet treatment to the `money man’ behind the 9-11 terrorists, or was it simply `routine’?

On the morning of September 11, Pakistan’s Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged “money-man” behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees.

“When the news [of the attacks on the World Trade Center] came, the two Florida lawmakers who lead the House and Senate intelligence committees were having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani intelligence service. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, Sen. Bob Graham and other members of the House Intelligence Committee were talking about terrorism issues with the Pakistani official when a member of Goss’ staff handed a note to Goss, who handed it to Graham. `We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan,’ Graham said.

(…)

Mahmoud Ahmad, director general of Pakistan’s intelligence service, was `very empathetic, sympathetic to the people of the United States,’ Graham said.”

Political Deception - The Missing Link Behind 9-11

by Michel Chossudovsky

Globalresearch.ca, 20 June 2002 (revised 27 June)

The foreknowledge issue is a Red Herring: “A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.“

On May 16th The New York Post dropped what appeared to be a bombshell: “Bush Knew …” Hoping to score politically, the Democrats jumped on the bandwagon, pressuring the White House to come clean on two “top-secret documents” made available to President Bush prior to September 11, concerning “advance knowledge” of Al Qaeda attacks. Meanwhile, the U.S. media had already coined a new set of buzzwords: “Yes, there were warnings” and “clues” of possible terrorist attacks, but “there was no way President Bush could have known” what was going to happen. The Democrats agreed to “keep the cat inside the bag” by saying: “Osama is at war with the U.S.” and the FBI and the CIA knew something was cooking but “failed to connect the dots.” In the words of House Minority Leader, Richard Gephardt:

“This is not blame-placing. . . . We support the President on the war against terrorism — have and will. But we’ve got to do better in preventing terrorist attacks.”[1]

The media’s spotlight on `foreknowledge’ and so-called “FBI lapses” served to distract public attention from the broader issue of political deception. Not a word was mentioned concerning the role of the CIA, which throughout the entire post-Cold War era, has aided and abetted Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, as part of its covert operations.

“Foreknowledge of 9-11″ - en samling artikler

Fant denne samlingen med artikler/lenker i Global Researchs arkiver:

Foreknowledge of 9-11: A Compilation of CRG articles and documents in support of a 9-11 Investigation

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D), Georgia, 12 April 2002 :

We know that there were several warnings that were given prior to the events of September 11th. People were calling in to the CIA and to the FBI, and they were giving information that was critical. There was adequate warning. But instead of requesting that Congress investigate what went wrong and why, we had President Bush place a phone call to Majority Leader Senator Tom Daschle, asking him not to investigate. (Emphasis added/uthevelse tilføyet)

My question is, what do they have to hide? The fact is that the father sits on the board of the Carlyle (ph) Group, which is one of the highest-level defense contractors in the country. And so we get this presidency of questionable legitimacy requesting a nearly unprecedented amount of money to go into a defense budget for defense spending that will directly benefit his father!

En god del av materialet i arkivet er “gårsdagens nyheter”, men kun for de som allerede vet.

Mange av de beste bevisene for US-myndighetenes innblanding i 9/11-terroren er å finne i den tidligste researchen som ble gjort, før mediapropaganda, desinformasjon og annen støy fikk grumset til sikten.

Folk som blir kjent med “bevegelsen” i dag kan fort få inntrykk av at det eneste som diskuteres innad i gruppen er eksplosiv demolering av Tvillingtårnene og WTC 7, samt muligens spørsmålene omkring hva som traff, eller ikke traff, Pentagon. Dette er nødvendige diskusjoner å ha, men de er også symtomatisk for hva som er iferd med å skje med bevegelsen; vi beveger oss til stadighet bort ifra mange solide bevis, og den researchen som tildels besvarer det velkjente spørsmål Cui Bono?

Jeg kommer derfor til å poste noen eldre artikler fremover, og ta en nærmere titt på noen viktige, omenn tilårskomne, indisium.

Sånn som dette om 9/11-innsidehandel:

Massive pre-attack ‘insider trading’ offer authorities hottest trail to accomplices. Billions in Pre-911 Insider Trading Profits Leaves a Hot Trail: How Bush Administration Naysayers May Have Let it go Cold

Eller denne:

On 9/11, CIA Was Running Simulation of a Plane Crashing into a Building

Som blir enda mer interessant når vi ser hva Condoleezza Rice sa i en pressebrifing 16. mai, 2002:

“Steve, I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.” (…) - Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice (Uthevelse tilføyet)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html

Jeg liker historie.