September 12, 2009

Mainstream media helps stifle inquiry into 9/11


The mainstream media deems search for the truth about 9/11 to be crazed, vile, heinous, outrageous, ludicrous, dangerous, tantamount to sedition.

Corporate media attempts to discredit and discourage discussion about 9/11 by smearing any who raise concerns or voice doubt about the official conspiracy theory.

The most common method used to chill any discussion of 9/11 is to invoke the phrase "conspiracy theories" and to associate discussion of 9/11 with crazy thinking.

This is convenient, since the official explanation for the events of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and hence anyone discussing it can be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.

Of course, the term "conspiracy theorist" is only applied to those who dare question the official conspiracy theory. Those who accept and believe without question, the official conspiracy theory... well they're just normal rational people.

But beyond the fantasy bubble inhabited by establishment lackeys, people are well aware of the lies and deception that masquerade as official dogma. In the wake of Van Jones resignation, Salon asked other signatories of the controversial petition demanding a proper investigation of 9/11, whether they still support the petition.

Here are some of the responses to Salon's question ...

Gray Brechin, historical geographer and visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley's Department of Geography, replied ...

"Until recently, I thought that I (like Van Jones) lived in a country with a First Amendment that permits freedom of speech, thought and petition without fear of reprisal."

Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law and practice at Princeton University; distinguished visiting professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, replied ...

"I would re-sign the 9/11 statement calling for investigation and clarification with respect to the series of questions that have never been satisfactorily answered. To call for an investigation along these lines does not make one a 9/11 'truther' or an endorser of a conspiracy theory. The deliberate blurring of the boundary between questioning the persuasiveness of the official version of 9/11 and the endorsement of an alternative theory of the events that implicates high officials in the Bush presidency seems designed to prevent further inquiry. Citizens in a democratic society deserve to know the truth, and to seek the truth in matters of such fundamental national importance should be treated as an expression of patriotic duty rather than the reverse."

Mark Crispin Miller, professor of media studies at New York University, replied ...

"Yes, if I had it to do over again, I would sign that statement readily, since the questions that it raises are not just legitimate but terribly important -- and they have not been answered credibly. The fact that such a statement should be controversial at all has less to do with what it says than with the great taboo that still inhibits rational discussion of the evidence. First of all, the statement asks for a new inquiry into 9/11. That is hardly an insane demand, considering the many obstacles and limitations that prevented the 9/11 Commission from doing a proper job."

Douglas Sturm, professor emeritus of religion and political science, Bucknell University, replied ...

"In direct response to your query, I in no way repudiate my action signing the 9/11 statement. It stands as an appeal to investigate closely and carefully a series of questions about that tragic event that have yet to receive fully satisfactory answers."

Burns H. Weston, professor emeritus, University of Iowa law school, replied ...

"Yes, I would do it all over again. It is my position that too many critical questions have not yet been officially answered, if even investigated, and that, therefore, the jury is still out on the complete truth of 9/11."


Explosive evidence of controlled demolition


After burning for less than two hours, the 110 story twin towers suddenly exploded into a cloud of dust that blanketed Lower Manhattan and spread across the Hudson River.

In each tower, 110 acres of 4" thick reinforced concrete was pulverized to fine powder in less than ten seconds, even as the towers were descending at near free fall acceleration.

Basic Newtonian physics refutes the propostition that gravitational force alone was sufficient to pulverize concrete and cut steel columns while simultaneously accelerating the mass of the building groundwards.



Some extra source of energy was required to pulverize the towers to dust.

Scientific analyses of the dust has revealed that extra source of energy.

The most recent scientific findings are presented in a paper entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe, published April 2009, in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal and available online at the Journals Home Page.

September 11, 2009

What happened at the BoNY on 9/11?

Alan Greenspan, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve, told the American Bankers Association’s Annual Convention on October 23, 2001, that the destruction of the World Trade Center had caused "difficulties in rolling over maturing commercial paper".
The resulting shortfalls in the coverage of billions of dollars of maturing paper were managed by rolling fails into the next day's settlement or by drawing on bank lines, causing bank assets to balloon for a few days.

Disruptions of communication lines and the shift to backup sites caused delays in payments and settlements, with billions in funds building up at a small number of participants. Fed and bank balance sheets ballooned with the maldistribution of reserves ...

Alan Greenspan, October 23, 2001

On November 27, 2001, Governor Laurence H. Meyer gave a speech before the National Association of Business Economics, St. Louis, Missouri , in which he said ...
The events of that day could have disrupted those markets and the activity that they financed for a considerable time. Instead, we learned once again that the financial sector is enormously resilient.

[R]esumption of business by financial firms depended on careful planning in advance, on backup data, on software, and so forth. To be sure, securities markets and transactions, particularly the clearing and settlement in the government securities markets, were disrupted for a period

We wore many hats on that day and the days immediately following. First, we acted as the provider of liquidity. We used every existing vehicle for injecting liquidity and even invented a new one - the use of large swap lines with foreign central banks to inject dollar liquidity.

Discount window loans soared instantly from around $200 million to a peak of about $45 billion on September 12 and Federal Reserve repurchase agreements soared from $25 billion to nearly $100 billion.

Governor Laurence H. Meyer, November 27, 2001

At the Conference on Bank Structure and Competition, Chicago, Illinois May 9, 2002, Vice Chairman Roger W. Ferguson, Jr. spoke about the Implications of 9/11 for the Financial Services Sector
The U.S. financial system largely remained open throughout the day and thereafter. Key wholesale and retail payments system remained operational. Even firms in the World Trade Center were able to resume business from other offices or from contingency sites within hours of the attack.

The response of the financial industry and the speed with which it resumed business was extraordinary and can be attributed only to its extensive preparations for ensuring continuity of operations in the wake of physical and cyber disruptions.

Roger W. Ferguson, May 9, 2002

And on February 5, 2003, Vice Chairman Roger W. Ferguson, Jr. spoke at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, about September 11, the Federal Reserve, and the Financial System
The Federal Reserve System organized a response that emphasized three objectives. First, as central bank we needed to provide sufficient liquidity through as many means as possible to maintain stability. Second, we had to ensure that our systems were operational. Third, we worked to keep markets open or to return them quickly to normal operations.

The damage to property and communications systems made it difficult for many banks to execute payments to one another. Once a number of banks began to be short of incoming payments, some became reluctant to send out payments. In effect, banks were growing short of liquidity.

Before September 11, banks held approximately $13 billion in their Fed accounts. In the days after September 11, these balances ballooned to more than $120 billion because some banks could not move funds out of their accounts. The large buildup of Federal Reserve account balances was limited to only a few banks, but it meant that a number of other banks were running huge negative positions in their Federal Reserve accounts and needed to find other sources of liquidity before the close of business.

One tool used to provide liquidity was the discount window. On September 12, lending to banks through the discount window totaled about $46 billion, more than two hundred times the daily average for the previous month.

Open market operations were a second tool at our disposal for pumping additional liquidity into the system. In these operations, our trading desk at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York enters the market daily to buy or sell Treasury securities. Our trading desk in New York met all propositions at the intended funds rate from September 12 through September 17, and the System engaged in a record level of open market operations through overnight repurchase agreements.

Also, the Fed's securities lending program expanded its provision of securities to the marketplace, and those securities in turn could be used as the collateral for private-sector liquidity arrangements. The staff of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, having evacuated its main site and gone to its backup facility, performed heroically in running the open market operations.

Despite the increased liquidity resulting from discount window lending and open market operations, some institutions still had difficulty exchanging payments. As a result, many depository institutions incurred larger-than-usual daylight overdrafts on their accounts at the Federal Reserve. On September 14, daylight overdrafts peaked at $150 billion, more than 60 percent higher than usual, despite Federal Reserve opening account balances of slightly more than $120 billion.

The Federal Reserve also worked with other regulators through the President's Working Group on Financial Markets to monitor developments in financial markets. As you know, the government securities market postponed settlements for a few days, the commercial paper market experienced significant problems, and the New York Stock Exchange remained closed until September 17.

We supported fully restoring financial markets to normal operations as soon as practical. However, we had to balance the benefit of a prompt return to business against the risk that the supporting infrastructure would be unable to handle a record volume of trades.

The incidents of September 11 taught us many lessons relating to central banking and financial stability. First, the importance of the Federal Reserve's role as lender of last resort. Second, the multiple roles the Federal Reserve plays - central bank, supervisor and regulator, and payment systems operator - gave us many opportunities during a crisis. A third lesson is that having diversified forms of risk intermediation makes the financial system more robust.

While I have been a member of the Board, I have from time to time heard some [dare] question the wisdom of our central bank being involved in supervision and regulation, while continuing to provide payment services, particularly retail payment services.

To my mind the events of September 11 should put such question to rest. From our experience, we should recognize the benefits of a central bank that can influence the economy and enhance financial [fraud] stability through several mutually reinforcing tools.

Vice Chairman Roger W. Ferguson, Jr. February 5, 2003

The Federal Reserve, without providing the detail required to substantiate it’s claims, would have the public believe that there were widespread liquidity issues, when in fact the issues were concentrated primarily in the Bank of New York, which has been the subject of a major money-laundering investigation for many years. These account balance issues resulted in the defacto expansion of the monetary supply, details of which are no longer reported by the Federal Reserve.

The reported cause of this market malfunction is seemingly suspect. By comparison, the Deutschebank which sat inside the World Trade Center reported no such account balance increase, and JP Morgan, the other of two clearing banks which uses the same traders and communications hub reported no such increase in account balance. Additionally, while problems were being documented between the BoNY and GCSS, no other institution had those problems.

There is every reason to believe activities in the Bank of New York in the aftermath of September 11th are worthy of suspicion.

For more info, see Collateral Damage: US Covert Operations and the Terror Attacks of 9/11

The official conspiracy theory is bunkum


On Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackers crashed two airliners into the World Trade Center in New York, causing the 110-story twin towers to collapse. Another hijacked airliner hit the Pentagon and a fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

That's the official conspiracy theory ... 19 Arab hijackers conspired to attack us.

But it would have required hundreds of people to pull off an operation like that.

Only people with security clearance could plant the necessary explosives in the towers.

Only people in charge of air defence could prevent timely interception of the hijacked airliners.

Only people in charge of the investigation could order the immediate removal and destruction of all the evidence from ground zero.

Only people with official authority could forestall an official inquiry.

Only people with controlling influence over the media could ensure that the official conspiracy theory would be the only version of events allowed for public consumption.

In effect, only people within the establishment had the ability to successfully conduct the 9/11 operation.

IMPORTANT: this does not imply that all of government was involved.

Only a handful of people needed to be fully aware of all operational details, and even they would have been ignorent about certain aspects of the operation ... with information shared on a need-to-know basis only, essential for plausible deniability of the actual sponsors.

But of this much we can be sure... senior military, intelligence, law enforcement and administration officials were clearly involved in facilitating the operation.

9/11 was a covert operation

A covert operation is "an operation that is so planned and executed as to conceal the identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor".
Covert operations are employed in situations where openly operating against a target would be disadvantageous. These operations are generally illegal in the target state and are frequently in violation of the laws of the sponsoring country. Operations may be directed at or conducted with allies and friends to secure their support for controversial components of foreign policy throughout the world.

Tactics include the use of a false flag or front group. Wikipedia
Perhaps not surprisingly, many people share the opinion encapsulated by this quote from talk radio personality, Phillip Adams.
Now, as we all know, the destruction of the World Trade Center had absolutely nothing to do with bin Laden, it was carried out by the Bush/Cheney regime, working closely with the FBI and the CIA, who we know have a long history of doing this sort of thing... just look at the Kennedy assassinations. Phillip Adams, Late Night Live
This is serious stuff, folks.

Just last week, Ed Munyak, a fire protection engineer, told the Metro...

Buildings do not fail from fire related causes in the way that World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 failed. Steel frame or composite steel buildings, modern high-rise buildings - they just do not collapse catastrophically like that. It's impossible.

Only if you sever columns in some other way will those buildings collapse. It takes too much energy, and that energy was not there even with adding in all that jet fuel. It defies all engineering analysis and theory that those buildings collapsed in that manner. It just doesn't make any sense.
And Ed is not alone... more than 1200 architects and engineers agree with him.