I wonder what intelligence there was before the attacks that the gov't ignored or was it a total suprise to them?

It'll be hard to say for certain since he never allowed an independent investigation into the intelligence failure that lead to the attacks.

But it does raise suspicions...

I thought I heard that the memos that the special committee wanted were going to be handed over, and the majority, believe it or not, are supposed to be from The Great Stain Maker's administration.

Does anyone seriously believe that profiling the politically correct establishment would tolerate profiling Arab Muslims back then. Even today it is forbidden.

Everything you could ever want to know.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/


Tie all that into the PNAC doctrine and you have your answers.

Im sure Clinton and Bush knew. Im sure most of the government knew but chose not to do anything about it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/31/opinion/main581252.shtml

Last December, when President Bush named Tom Kean, the mild-mannered Republican former governor of New Jersey, to lead the commission investigating the September 11 attacks, critics scoffed that Kean would be an administration patsy. But the White House's resistance to releasing crucial information about the attacks has stirred him to anger. "I will not stand for it," Kean fumed last week. "Anything that has to do with 9/11, we have to see it -- anything." Kean has complained for several weeks about executive branch foot-dragging and has suggested the administration may be trying to run out the clock on the committee's mandate, which expires in May.

Kean's not the only one who's upset. Other Republican members of the committee, including former Sen. Slade Gorton, a stalwart conservative, have echoed his complaints. And, given that the commission's mandate is to determine how the attacks happened and to make recommendations about stopping another one, these complaints are serious business.

Any lack of cooperation from the White House is troubling, but one key point of contention is especially disturbing: whether the commission will have access to daily intelligence briefings given to the president in the weeks before September 11, 2001. Particularly in light of revelations that at least one of these reports indicated that al Qaeda was planning to hijack U.S. airliners, these briefings are clearly relevant. Studying them might help the commission recommend ways of prioritizing future briefings more effectively.

Anybody want to take a stab at this and explain exactly how invading Iraq wil make the US safer when it appears we have the biggest threat to the Amrican people on our own soil?

Conspiracies and genocide aren't anything new, and the US doesn't have a magical genie protecting us from such evil, it can happen anywhere. That is why people need to be constantly watching the actions of their own government, and scrutinizing everything they do. When people are too busy with their lives to care about what our now massive government does behind closed doors there will be no freedom or security.

I red once there were bombs in the buildings too.

Im not that positive that Bush himself new anything. But, the fact remains, that various government agencies had strong pointers towards 'something happening' and none of them followed up on anything. None of them talked together about anything...

We had the CIA tailing two of the terrorists (one being the mastermind) since a year earlier and they let them BACK into the country after going to a terrorist meeting

We had an FBI agent in Arizona warn his higher ups about the threat that these terrorists could pose

We had Mousadi (sp) in custody for months, caught, at a flight school

We had the plans from the 93WTC bombing, which indicated a plane strike on US targets

We had 'increased chatter' over the months and days before 9.11

The signs were there, no one connected any dots or followed up on anything.

yea but I dont really buy that they were just neglegtant.some,i wont name them(horowitz..)had plans for Irak allready when bush senior was in office.its all too convenient for them

Originally posted by oki
I red once there were bombs in the buildings too.

In 1993, yes but not the 9/11 attacks.

Originally posted by 302Riz


In 1993, yes but not the 9/11 attacks.


There are some who think there might have been, supposedlt the same company that demolished the remains of the OKC federal building and hauled it away before any independent investigators could analyze the debris cleaned up the WTC site..:shrug:

Makes me wonder..

INSIDER TRADING

The documented pre-Sept. 11 insider trading that occurred before the attacks involved only companies hit hard by the attacks. They include United Airlines, American Airlines, Morgan Stanley, Merrill-Lynch, Axa Reinsurance, Marsh & McLennan, Munich Reinsurance, Swiss Reinsurance, and Citigroup.

In order to argue that the massive and well-documented insider trading that occurred in at least seven countries immediately before the attacks of Sept. 11 did not serve as a warning to intelligence agencies, then it is necessary to argue that no one was aware of the trades as they were occurring, and that intelligence and law enforcement agencies of most industrialized nations do not monitor stock trades in real time to warn of impending attacks. Both assertions are false. Both assertions would also ignore the fact that the current executive vice president of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) for enforcement is David Doherty, a retired CIA general counsel. And also ignored is the fact that the trading in United Airlines stock -- one of the most glaring clues -- was placed through the firm De! utschebank/Alex Brown, which was headed until 1998 by the man who is now the executive director of the CIA, A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard.

One wonders if it was a coincidence then, that Mayo Shattuck III, the head of the Alex Brown unit of Deutschebank -- which had its offices in the WTC -- suddenly resigned from a $30 million, three-year contract on Sept. 12, as reported by the New York Times and other papers.

The American exchanges that handle these trades, primarily the Chicago Board of Options Exchange (CBOE) and the NYSE, know on a daily basis what levels of put options are purchased. “Put options” are highly leveraged bets, tying up blocks of stock, that a given stock’s share price will fall dramatically. To quote 60 Minutes from Sept. 19, “Sources tell CBS News that the afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market.”

It is hard to believe that they missed:

- A jump in UAL put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between Sept. 6 and Sept.10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack– [CBS News, Sept. 26]

- A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks. [CBS News, Sept. 26]

- No similar trading occurred on any other airlines. [Bloomberg Business Report, the Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), Herzliyya, Israel citing data from the CBOE]

- Morgan Stanley saw, between Sept. 7 and Sept.10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares. [ICT Report, Mechanics of Possible Bin-Laden Insider Trading Scam, Sept. 21, citing data from the CBOE].

- Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put options in the four trading days before the attacks. [Ibid]

These trades were certainly noticed after the attacks.

“This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you’ve ever seen in your entire life…This would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence,” said Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Business News, interviewed on Good Morning Texas on Sept. 20.

“’I saw put-call numbers higher than I’ve ever seen in 10 years of following the markets, particularly the options markets,’ said John Kinnucan, principal of Broadband Research, as quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle,” reported the Montreal Gazette on Sept. 19. The paper also wrote, “Agence France Presse, on Sept. 22, reported, ‘And Germany’s Bundesbank chief, Ernst Weltke, said on the sidelines of the meeting that a report of the investigation showed “bizarre” fiscal transactions prior to the attacks that could not have been chalked up to coincidence.

“Weltke said the transactions, ‘could not have been planned and carried out without a certain knowledge,’ particularly heavy trading in oil and gold futures.”

ABC World News reported on Sept. 20, “Jonathan Winer, an ABC News consultant said, ‘it’s absolutely unprecedented to see cases of insider trading covering the entire world from Japan, to the U.S., to North America, to Europe.”

How much money was involved? Andreas von Bulow, a former member of the German Parliament responsible for oversight of Germany’s intelligence services estimated the worldwide amount at $15 billion, according to Tagesspiegel on Jan. 13. Other experts have estimated the amount at $12 billion. CBS News gave a conservative estimate of $100 million.

Not a single U.S. or foreign investigative agency has announced any arrests or developments in the investigation of these trades, the most telling evidence of foreknowledge of the attacks. This, in spite of the fact that former Security and Exchange Commission enforcement chief William McLucas told Bloomberg News that regulators would “certainly be able to track down every trade.”

What is striking is that a National Public Radio report on Oct. 16 reported Britain’s Financial Services Authority had cleared bin Laden and his henchmen of insider trading. If not bin Laden, then who else had advance knowledge? Who else had certainty that the attacks would succeed to give them confidence to make millions of dollars in stock purchases?

It has been standard and established USG policy to be alert and responsive to anything even remotely resembling an attack on U.S. companies and/or the economy. The word “remote” does not apply here. The possible claim by the Bush Administration that, ‘Gee, we just happened to miss this,’ becomes even more implausible when considering the lengths intelligence agencies go to in order to track stock trades.

Note that the Israeli Institute for Counter-Terrorism was the first entity to release a detailed report on the insider trading. That alone is prima facie evidence of a direct relationship between the financial markets and terrorist investigations.

CIA and the Markets

We can thank Fox News on Oct. 16 for breaking post 9-11 stories disclosing the use of sophisticated PROMIS software by the FBI and the Justice Department. A multitude of court records and investigative reports have established not only the reality, but the versatility of a program initially designed to incorporate data from a variety of data bases in different languages into one readable format. PROMIS has since been refined to include artificial intelligence and ”back doors” inserted by intelligence agencies to allow for surreptitious retrieval and/or removal and alteration of data.

The Fox stories clearly confirmed, especially when added to stories from last summer by the Washington Times which were based on interviews with Justice Department officials, that PROMIS was used to monitor banking and financial transactions in a virtual real-time environment.

This writer has written extensively on the software. More information can be found on the Web site at

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/index.html


CONCLUSION

There is clear and substantial evidence to suggest that the Bush Administration had sufficient foreknowledge of the attacks of Sept. 11 to have prevented them. Rather than viewing each of the four listed areas as a separate piece of evidence, they should be considered as a body, in the exact same way exhibits presented to a jury in a criminal trial are viewed as a body. By viewing the evidence in this manner, an unavoidable conclusion is reached -- the USG knew 25 suicide hijackers during the week of Sept. 9 were going to use United and American airlines commercial planes, some of them likely originating in Boston, to attack the WTC and the Pentagon. A multitude of press stories and intelligence reports indicate the WTC would have been the primary target.

Given the financial commitments made during insider trading activity that occurred immediately before the attacks involving businesses that were directly damaged by the attacks, the threats had clearly moved from the realm of speculation to reality. Why else would mysterious investors have risked millions of dollars to purchase the put options? There is compelling evidence to suggest these trades were noted by the CIA and other USG entities.

Recently, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., has been widely criticized in the mainstream press for raising the need for a Congressional investigation to answer some of these obvious questions. This, in spite of the fact that popular reaction indicates a different sentiment. An opinion poll, conducted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution just a day after McKinney’s remarks received wide public attention in a Washington Post story dated April 12, was pulled after poll numbers showed that 51 percent of the respondents agreed with McKinney.

The people seem to recognize and agree with the opinion of former CIA officer Mike Osborne who says, “I think that the U.S. government needs to get behind McKinney’s questions because her agenda is truth and justice, and nothing else.”