Asia Times investigating 9/11 through different approach: March 21, 2012 article

[x0Maximilian0x]

Asia Times is investigating 9/11 through a different approach...

Remember the insider trading that would have a direct connection to fore knowledge of 9/11 and therefore make them an accomplice to 9/11 crimes?

Here is todays... March 21, 2012 article on it and new technology tracking insider trading...


Insider trading 9/11 ... the facts laid bare

Asia Times Online :: Asian news and current affairs

So are you still a proud American? Here is a window into your government through a foreign investigation...


Here is a very interesting and disturbing part of the article...this helps piece together...well just read for yourself...


"According to a report by Bloomberg published in early October 2001, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) began a probe into certain stock market transactions around 9/11 that included 38 companies, among them: American Airlines, United Airlines, Continental Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Boeing, Lockheed Martin Corp., American Express Corp., American International Group, AXA SA, Bank of America Corp., Bank of New York Corp., Bear Stearns, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Morgan Stanley, General Motors and Raytheon. [14]

So far, so good. In the same month, however, the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper reported that the SEC took the unprecedented step to deputize hundreds, if not even thousands of key stakeholders in the private sector for their investigation. In a statement that was sent to almost all listed companies in the US, the SEC asked the addressed companies to assign senior staff for the investigation, who would be aware of "the sensitive nature" of the case and could be relied on to "exercise appropriate discretion". [15]

In essence, it was about controlling information, not about provision and disclosure of facts. Such a course of action involves compromising consequences. Ruppert:
What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown into jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time after time with federal investigators, intelligence agents, and even members of United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration.[16]"

[jimnyc]

Asia Times is investigating 9/11 through a different approach...

Remember the insider trading that would have a direct connection to fore knowledge of 9/11 and therefore make them an accomplice to 9/11 crimes?

Here is todays... March 21, 2012 article on it and new technology tracking insider trading...


Insider trading 9/11 ... the facts laid bare

Asia Times Online :: Asian news and current affairs

So are you still a proud American? Here is a window into your government through a foreign investigation...


Here is a very interesting and disturbing part of the article...this helps piece together...well just read for yourself...


"According to a report by Bloomberg published in early October 2001, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) began a probe into certain stock market transactions around 9/11 that included 38 companies, among them: American Airlines, United Airlines, Continental Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Boeing, Lockheed Martin Corp., American Express Corp., American International Group, AXA SA, Bank of America Corp., Bank of New York Corp., Bear Stearns, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Morgan Stanley, General Motors and Raytheon. [14]

So far, so good. In the same month, however, the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper reported that the SEC took the unprecedented step to deputize hundreds, if not even thousands of key stakeholders in the private sector for their investigation. In a statement that was sent to almost all listed companies in the US, the SEC asked the addressed companies to assign senior staff for the investigation, who would be aware of "the sensitive nature" of the case and could be relied on to "exercise appropriate discretion". [15]

In essence, it was about controlling information, not about provision and disclosure of facts. Such a course of action involves compromising consequences. Ruppert:
What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown into jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time after time with federal investigators, intelligence agents, and even members of United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration.[16]"

All 3 paragraphs come from - http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html They didn't even bother to remove the [14][15][16] from the copy/paste job. And they don't credit the source. One crackpot stealing from another!

[x0Maximilian0x]

All 3 paragraphs come from - http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html They didn't even bother to remove the [14][15][16] from the copy/paste job. And they don't credit the source. One crackpot stealing from another!

It is a legitimate investigation directly through Asia Times. The article is quite long and very thorough so based on your knee jerk reaction (quick denial post) you clearly haven't read the long and thorough article...

[jimnyc]

It is a legitimate investigation directly through Asia Times. The article is quite long and very thorough so based on your knee jerk reaction (quick denial post) you clearly haven't read the long and thorough article...

I've literally read the ENTIRE wtc site I linked to. Why would I want to read it again from a site that selective stole from them? The article is long and mostly stolen.

[x0Maximilian0x]

Now let the O.J. Simpson defense attorney's begin their manipulations to the jury...lol

[jimnyc]

Now let the O.J. Simpson defense attorney's begin their manipulations to the jury...lol

Why do you post the same crap over and over, and post it to so many sites? Do you see yourself as a liberator of sorts, going around one political forum at a time exposing the truth?

[x0Maximilian0x]

I've literally read the ENTIRE wtc site I linked to. Why would I want to read it again from a site that selective stole from them? The article is long and mostly stolen.

You clearly show a lot of interest in 9/11 for one reason or another...

Usually a true story doesn't have to go through such great lengths (O.J. Simpson defense attorney's propagating it) to defend itself.

So be honest...why do you have such great interest in attacking, manipulating information?

[jimnyc]

You clearly show a lot of interest in 9/11 for one reason or another...

Usually a true story doesn't have to go through such great lengths (O.J. Simpson defense attorney's propagating it) to defend itself.

So be honest...why do you have such great interest in attacking, manipulating information?

I like to expose truthers, it's fun, and easy.

[Anton Chigurh]

Everybody knows it was space ale yuns, ya dumbass!

[x0Maximilian0x]

I like to expose truthers, it's fun, and easy.

Yes I can see where it would be funny and fun with some...

There are a lot of crazy theories being put out either from someone with a low I.Q., as a joke, or as smoke screen clouding over the core indisputable facts making it a daunting task to research all the relating facts surrounding the 9/11 event...

[jimnyc]

Yes I can see where it would be funny and fun with some...

There are a lot of crazy theories being put out either from someone with a low I.Q., as a joke, or as smoke screen clouding over the core indisputable facts making it a daunting task to research all the relating facts surrounding the 9/11 event...

And in over 10 years now, not one piece of direct evidence has been uncovered. Lots of good conspiracies, unanswered questions, things hard to explain.... But not one piece of direct evidence. The amazing amount of people that would have needed to be involved, and not a single witness. Keep believing what you like, but realistic people want this definitive proof.

[x0Maximilian0x]

And in over 10 years now, not one piece of direct evidence has been uncovered. Lots of good conspiracies, unanswered questions, things hard to explain.... But not one piece of direct evidence. The amazing amount of people that would have needed to be involved, and not a single witness. Keep believing what you like, but realistic people want this definitive proof.

Have you read about one strategy that works to keep information from getting out when many people are involved?

You say lots of good conspiracies, unanswered questions, things hard to explain...but what in your mind would be "direct evidence"?

Some mothers can sit through an entire trial with evidence showing what a monsterous crime her son has committed...but something in the mothers mind never sees any "direct evidence" and she will always believe her beloved son could never do such a monsterous thing...

[jimnyc]

Have you read about one strategy that works to keep information from getting out when many people are involved?

You say lots of good conspiracies, unanswered questions, things hard to explain...but what in your mind would be "direct evidence"?

Some mothers can sit through an entire trial with evidence showing what a monsterous crime her son has committed...but something in the mothers mind never sees any "direct evidence" and she will always believe her beloved son could never do such a monsterous thing...

I'm not debating it with you, sorry. You want my argument? Here's a debate from a long time ago - http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...-an-inside-job

[x0Maximilian0x]

I'm not debating it with you, sorry. You want my argument? Here's a debate from a long time ago - http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...-an-inside-job

Here is some information again on how things can work...

Quote from above:In essence, it was about controlling information, not about provision and disclosure of facts. Such a course of action involves compromising consequences. Ruppert:
What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown into jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time after time with federal investigators, intelligence agents, and even members of United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration.


Based on this information above brings to question many things...wouldn't it be interesting if all Senators were somehow manipulated to being trapped into the situation outlined in the above paragraph?

[x0Maximilian0x]

I'm not debating it with you, sorry. You want my argument? Here's a debate from a long time ago - http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...-an-inside-job

So you link me to a poll of a jury the O.J. Simpson defense attorney's had successfully swayed?

Would you like to see some real polls about 9/11 and what the U.S. and World population thinks?