THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUTH:

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.



Thursday, April 5, 2012

“CAPITALIZING” ON 9/11: Stock Market Signs Of Foreknowledge

.
.
By and large the American people are so oblivious to what really occurred on September 11, 2001, that most don’t even realize that THREEnot twoWorld Trade Center towers collapsed on that day.
.
Yes, everyone knows about Tower One and Tower Two that came crashing down; but hours later, WTC Tower #7, about a block away, also collapsed in like manner, despite never having been hit by an airplane. Tower 7’s collapse remains unexplained (and usually unmentioned in media accounts) to this day.

Even fewer people are aware that bizarre activity in the stock market just days prior to the terrorist attacks provides a powerful indication that some highly placed people on Wall Street and/or in the U.S. Government had foreknowledge of the attacks. In fact, the odd stock market activity is more than just a “powerful indication” of this, it is, in fact, essentially “statistical proof” of the foreknowledge.

Even before the sun had set on 9/11/2001, I was aware of obviously strange, unanswered questions that pointed to the possibility of U.S. Government conspiratorial involvement. As the days became weeks and months, I became increasingly suspicious.

Eventually, I read ‘INSIDE JOB’, ‘CROSSING THE RUBICON’, ‘ALICE IN WONDERLAND AND THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER’ and other similar books and articles which delved deeply into the troubling unanswered questions concerning what was an entirely avoidable tragic attack.


A “put option” is when you bet that the stock in a company will go down in value. If it does, you can make big money. A “call option” is when you bet that the stock price will go up. Clearly the stock price in the airlines involved in the [9/11] hijackings, American Airlines and United Airlines, would fall immediately after the attacks, as would that of companies with a major operation in the World Trade Center.
~ David Icke
ALICE IN WONDERLAND AND THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER: Why The Official Story of 9/11 Is A Monumental Lie’ (2002) - page 327

The levels of put options purchased [between September 6 and 7, for United Airlines; and on September 10, 2001, for American Airlines] were more than six times higher than normal. No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.

Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6.
~ Michael Ruppert
‘CROSSING THE RUBICON: The Decline Of The American Empire At The End Of The Age Of Oil’ (2004) – page 246

"I am absolutely convinced that the Central Intelligence Agency had complete and perfect foreknowledge of the attacks, right down to the date, time, place and location.”
~ Michael Ruppert
‘ONLINE JOURNAL’ – October 12, 2001

Author Don Radlauer, who specializes in stock options and derivatives, noted the suspicious stock trading and stated, “Obviously, anyone who had detailed knowledge of the attacks before they happened was, at the very least, an accessory to their planning; and the overwhelming probability is that the trades could have been made only by the same people who masterminded the attacks themselves.”

Who would that be?

The US Government itself was holding the majority of the international and domestic “short” positions, according to commodity trading advisor Walter Burien, a former tenant of the World Trade Center.
~ Jim Marrs
‘INSIDE JOB: Unmasking The 9/11 Conspiracies’ (2004) – page 92

When news of the stock trades broke, the CIA announced there would be an investigation, and media reports said that market regulators in the US, UK, Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Japan were to be involved. Have you ever heard another word about this “investigation”, even though the transactions must be traceable? No, me neither. The trail did not lead to bin Laden or the Islamic world, or sure as hell we would have seen it blazed across front pages a long time ago.
~ David Icke
ALICE IN WONDERLAND AND THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER: Why The Official Story of 9/11 Is A Monumental Lie’ (2002) - page 328

I wish that story would get more press. It's one thing to try to prove that the WTC was brought down by other means such as explosive charges, or that missiles were used instead of passenger planes, etc., but when you are staring at documented proof that an obscene number of "bets" in the form of options were placed against the airlines a day or two before 9/11...
.
...anyway, if I did that, every gov't 'acronym' would have busted down my front door the next day. Since when can't the gov't or the Washington Post or someone/anyone follow the money trail...unless they don't want to?
~ Sigmund
'MONKEY THROW DART' : An Informational Site For Traders And Investors
.

Recently, my friend Sigmund (a.k.a. SigToo) - a very sharp guy and the mind behind the now defunct blog ‘Monkey Throw Dart’ - called my attention to a good article pertaining to the stock market fluctuation that proves insider foreknowledge of the attacks.

Sigmund’s April 27, 2011, post was titled:
.
And referring to the article ‘BLACK 9/11: A Walk on the Dark Side’ by Mark H. Gaffney, Sigmund wrote:

For a good read when you have the time, check out the entire two part article. Not surprisingly, after reading this, your suspicions may be confirmed, or you may think it is more science fiction...if there is such a thing. For those with short attention spans, read Part 2 first and then backtrack 
to Part 1.
.
Could somebody wake Oliver Stone out of his coma. His best script is right here.

Below I have posted Part 2 of that article. This is fairly lengthy and it requires some concentration and a little brain power, which means it’s not going to appeal to 98% of the American public:

BLACK 9/11: A Walk on the Dark Side
Second in a series

by Mark H. Gaffney

March 2, 2011

This paper will review the evidence for informed, or insider, trading in the days and hours before the 9/11 attacks. From the very first, the phenomenon appeared to be world-wide.  One consultant, Jonathan Winer, told ABC: “it’s absolutely unprecedented to see cases of insider trading covering the entire world from Japan to the US to North America to Europe.”[1] The list of affected nations was long, and included the US, Germany, Japan, France Luxembourg, Hong Kong, the UK, Switzerland and Spain.[2] Soon, independent investigations were underway on three continents in the belief that the paper trail would lead to the terrorists.

Press statements by leading figures in the international banking community left little doubt that the evidence was compelling. Ernst Welteke, President of the German Deutsche Bundesbank, told reporters that “a preliminary review by German regulators and bank researchers showed there were highly suspicious sales of shares in airlines and insurance companies, along with major trades in gold and oil markets, before September 11 that suggest….advance knowledge of the attacks. Welteke said that his researchers came across….almost irrefutable proof of insider trading.”  Welteke was blunt: “What we found makes us sure that people connected to the terrorists must have been trying to profit from this tragedy.”[3]

In the U.K., London City regulators investigated a flurry of suspicious sales processed just before the attack.[4] “The Financial Services Authority (FSA), a stock market watchdog, was drawn into the investigation because it had a transaction monitoring department that checks suspicious share movements.” An FSA spokesperson confirmed that market regulators in Germany, Japan and the U.S. had received information about short selling of insurance company shares and airline stocks, which fell sharply as a result of the attacks. Among the WTC tenants were dozens of banks and insurance companies, including several that were now going to have to pay out billions to cover heavy losses from the attacks.[5]

Assuming nefarious individuals were armed with foreknowledge, they stood to make a windfall by dumping stock and selling competitors short, not to mention the vast potential profits from last-minute electronic money laundering via computers which, the perpetrators had to know, would be destroyed within hours. Richard Crossley, a London analyst, stated that he had tracked suspicious short selling and share dumping in a swath of stocks. CBS likewise reported a sharp upsurge in purchases of put options on both United and American Airlines.[6] The uptick had occurred in the days prior to 9/11. A put option is a contract that allows the holder to sell a stock at a specified price, within a certain time period. Sources on Wall Street told CBS that before 9/11 they had never seen that kind of trading imbalance. The only airlines affected were United and American, the two involved in the attack. American Airlines stock reportedly fell 39% in a single day. United Airlines stock dropped even more, by a whopping 44%.

Although many stocks tumbled, there were also big winners, especially in the military sector. Contractors like L-3 Communications, Allied Techsystems and Northrop Grumman all reported large gains.[7] The biggest winner, though, was Raytheon, which manufactures Tomahawk missiles. During the week following the 9/11 attacks, Raytheon stock climbed by an astounding 37%.[8] Prior to 9/11, the purchase of call options (a contract to buy a stock at a certain price) for Raytheon had suspiciously surged by 600%.

The sale of five-year U.S. Treasury Notes also spiked just before 9/11, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.[9] Among the purchases was a single $5 billion transaction, which pointed to large investors. The Journal explained that “Treasury notes are among the best investments in the event of a world crisis, especially one that hits the US. The notes are prized for their safety and their backing by the U.S. government, and usually rally when investors flee riskier investments, such as stocks.” Michael Shamosh, a bond-market strategist for Tucker Anthony Inc., told the Journal:  “If they were going to do something like this they would do it in the five-year part of the market. [Because] It’s extremely liquid, and the tracks would be hard to spot.” The article added that “The value of these notes has risen sharply since the events of September 11.”

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launched its own probe into allegations of insider trading. For weeks, the SEC remained close-mouthed about the scope of its investigation, then, in mid-October, sent out a request to securities firms around the world for more information regarding a list of 38 different stocks.[10] SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt told the House Financial Services Committee that “We will do everything in our power to track those people down and bring them to justice.”[11] By this time, however, the fix was in.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the SEC took the unprecedented step of deputizing “hundreds, if not thousands, of key players in the private sector.”[12] Wrote the Chronicle: “In a two-page statement issued to ‘all securities-related entities’ nationwide, the SEC asked companies to designate senior personnel who appreciate ‘the sensitive nature’ of the case and can be relied upon to ‘exercise appropriate discretion’ as ‘point’ people linking government investigators and the industry.” The requested information was to be held in strictest confidence. The SEC statement included the following passage (emphasis added): “We ask that you disseminate the information within your institution only on a need-to-know basis.”

In his book “Crossing the Rubicon”, former LAPD detective Mike Ruppert explains the SEC’s unprecedented move to deputize:
.
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…. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown in jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time and again with federal investigations, intelligence agents, and even members of the 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.[13]

Notice, this surely means that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the insider trading.[14] When the evidentiary trail led back to Wall Street, the SEC moved quickly to control the evidence and muzzle potential witnesses. Despite the best efforts of the SEC, a few details did leak to the world press. In mid-October 2001, The Independent (UK) reported that, “To the embarrassment of investigators, it has….emerged that the firm used to buy many of the ‘put’ options (where a trader, in effect, bets on a share price fall) on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by Alvin ‘Buzzy’ Krongard, now executive director of the CIA.”[15] The evidence was all the more incriminating, because in at least one case the purchaser failed to collect a reported $2.5 million in profits made from the collapsing share price of UAL stock. The only plausible explanation was that someone at the purchasing bank feared exposure and subsequent arrest.

For the most part, the U.S. press failed to pick up the story, which clearly linked Wall Street and the U.S. intelligence community to the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, the New York Times cooperated with the cover-up.[16] George Tenet writes in his memoirs that he recruited Buzzy Krongard in 1998 to become his deputy at CIA, probably to serve as Tenet’s personal liaison to Wall Street.[17] Until 1997, Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown Inc., America’s oldest investment banking firm. Alex Brown was acquired by Bankers Trust in 1997, which, in turn, was purchased by Deutsche Bank in 1999. In the mid-1990s, Krongard had served as a consultant to CIA director James Woolsey.

In 1998, Banker’s Trust-Alex Brown refused to cooperate with a Senate subcommittee which, at the time, was conducting hearings on the involvement of U.S. banks in money laundering activities.[18] At the time, Banker’s Trust, like other large U.S. banks, was in the business of private banking. This means that Banker’s Trust catered to unnamed wealthy clients for the purpose of setting up shell companies in foreign jurisdictions, such as on the Isle of Jersey, where effective bank regulation and oversight are nonexistent. According to Ruppert, Krongard’s last job at Alex Brown was to oversee “private client relations.”[19] This means that Krongard personally arranged confidential transactions and transfers for the bank’s unnamed wealthy clientele.

Private banks typically offer a range of services to their clients for the purpose of shielding them from oversight. Private banks set up multiple offshore accounts in multiple locations under multiple names. They also facilitate the quick, confidential and hard-to-trace transfer of money across jurisdictional boundaries. In many such cases, the private banks do not even know who owns the account; which, of course, means that not even the bankers can follow the transactions with “due diligence.” Many private banks do not even try, for fear of scaring away business, especially from foreign clients. Even though private bankers are responsible for enforcing legal controls against money laundering, where such laws exist, in practice, oversight is typically weak or nonexistent. I was shocked to learn that although it is illegal for U.S. banks to launder ill-gotten money that originates within the United States, it is not illegal for them to accept dirty money from elsewhere. No surprise then, that many U.S. banks openly solicit business from Central American drug lords, arms merchants, and other shady entities.

For these reasons, it is little wonder that over the last several decades, law enforcement has failed to stem the growing international flood of laundered drug money and other illicit assets. Their failure has been spectacular. In 1999, a consensus of experts in Germany, Switzerland and at the U.S. Treasury agreed that 99.9% of laundered money routinely escapes detection. The experts estimated that the annual total was between $500 billion and a trillion dollars, a mind-boggling number, about half of which is washed into the U.S. economy, the rest into Europe.[20]

After “Buzzy” Krongard’s departure to the CIA, his successor at Alex Brown was his former deputy Mayo Shattuck III, who had worked at the bank for many years. In 1997, Shattuck helped Krongard engineer the merger with Banker’s Trust, and he stayed on after Deutsche Bank acquired Bankers Trust – Alex Brown in 1999.[21]

According to the New York Times, Bankers Trust was “one of the most loosely managed [banks] on Wall Street,” and during the 1990s was repeatedly rocked by scandal. In 1994, clients and regulators accused the bank “of misleading customers about its risky derivative products.” The case went viral when tape recordings were made public that showed bank salesmen snickering about ripping off naive customers. In 1999, Banker’s Trust pled guilty to criminal conspiracy charges, after it was revealed that top-level executives had created a slush fund out of at least $20 million in unclaimed funds.[22] Bankers Trust had to pay a $63 million fine and would have been forced to close its doors but for the fact it was acquired, just at this time, by Deutsche Bank, Europe’s largest bank.

According to the New York Times, Mayo Shattuck III “was made co-head of investment banking in January [2001], overseeing Deutsche Bank’s 400 brokers who cater to wealthy clients.”[23] It is curious that Shattuck resigned immediately after the 9/11 attacks.

In a footnote buried on page 499, the 9/11 Commission Report alludes to Mayo Shattuck III’s likely role in purchasing the United Airlines put options just prior to 9/11. The note fails to mention Shattuck and Deutsche Bank by name, but attempts to explain away the charges of insider trading, as follows:

A single US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95% of the UAL puts on September 6 [2001] as part of a strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading on September 10 was traced to a specific US-based options trading newsletter….which recommended these trades.[24]

Evidently, we are supposed to conclude that “American” means American Airlines. But here it could just as easily refer to American Express. If Deutsche Bank’s pre-9/11 trading was truly hedged, as the 9/11 Commission Report contends in the footnote, then it would not meet the definition of informed or insider trading. However, without more information, it is not possible to confirm or refute the facts in this particular case.
.
Still, the commission’s token explanation is not convincing. Two statistical studies since published reported an unusual volume in options trading for both United and American airlines in the days before 9/11. The author of the first study wrote that the results are “consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks.”[25] The second paper, by the Swiss Banking Institute, reached the same conclusion.[26] A third study looked at the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX index options) and found “abnormal trading volumes in September 2001 OTM, ATM and ITM SPX index put options, and September 2001 ITM SPX index call options.” The authors concluded that there is “credible circumstantial evidence to support the insider trading claim.”[27]

~ Mark H. Gaffney is the author of The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America (2008). His next book, Black 9/11, will be released later this year. 9/11 Whistleblowers are encouraged to contact Mark at markhgaffney@earthlink.net Read more articles by Mark H. Gaffney.


From ‘CROSSING THE RUBICON’ by Michael Ruppert, page 251:

Alex. Brown also played a key role in refinancing the Carlyle Group for its acquisition of United Defense technologies in 2000. This close connection to Bush family business ventures is not a surprise because Alex. Brown’s connections to the Bush family stretch back for at least seven decades. The Alex. Brown investment bank helped to finance and organize the firm managed in the first half of the 20th Century by George W. Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush: Brown Brothers, Harriman.

Harriman - now there’s a name that will be familiar to every person who has spent any time at all investigating the history and backroom deals of the “New World Order” conspiracy!

My thanks to Sig(Too) for making me aware of Mark Gaffney’s excellent article.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

13 comments:

  1. I have some questions, and since you know way more about this and I know almost nothing, I'll ask you. You may just say "read a book about it!"

    First, there is a quote from "Crossing the Rubicon", then a conclusion.

    "'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…. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown in jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time and again with federal investigations, intelligence agents, and even members of the 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.[13]'

    Notice, this surely means that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the insider trading.[14] When the evidentiary trail led back to Wall Street, the SEC moved quickly to control the evidence and muzzle potential witnesses."

    While this MAY be true, the conclusion is a leap in logic that the author certainly didn't prove with this little bit of evidence. While what he says about deputizing is true, he does not prove that keeping them silent is THE reason these people were deputized. He needs additional evidence.

    Second, the following quote was confusing to me. It quotes the 9/11 Report, then follows with a comment.

    "'A single US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95% of the UAL puts on September 6 [2001] as part of a strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading on September 10 was traced to a specific US-based options trading newsletter….which recommended these trades.[24]'

    Evidently, we are supposed to conclude that “American” means American Airlines. But here it could just as easily refer to American Express."

    I don't see why American Express would even be mentioned. I don't even know why it would be advantageous for anyone to imply AAL when they meant AMEX.

    Clearly, there is a lot worth reading on this subject, and I have avoided it for the several years I have known you. Maybe I'll have to step up to the plate.

    Finally, you discovered what it takes to compel us all to read F-FFF: stop your other blog!

    ReplyDelete
  2. SJM,

    Really nice job putting together this post! The monkey with the big dart was a nice touch.

    I think I've read several more books and viewed more videos regarding these type of topics since reading your blog. It all started with your review of 'The Creature from Jeykll Island'. So thanks for that.

    How many Americans view these topics from a different angle, and with an open mind? Most would rather stick their heads in the sand and believe what they see and hear from those talking heads in the main-stream media. Anyone who is still convinced that Oswald acted alone should at least watch 'Spooks, Hoods and the Hidden Elite'. Chauncey Holt knew he was dying when he gave his inside account of the events in Dallas in 1963. More recently, the only thing more bizarre than WTC7 falling the way it did is the lack of public outcry for at least a plausible explanation. (Mythbusters isn't going to touch that one either, at least not for another 50 years.)

    In the case of put options on the airlines prior to 9/11, the facts are right there in plain sight, and the response from the September 11 Commission Report is weak to say the least. They could have said was that a friend of a friend of Bin Laden bought the puts ( I might accept that) but instead they response, "A single US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95% of the UAL puts on September 6 [2001] as part of a strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading on September 10 was traced to a specific US-based options trading newsletter….which recommended these trades.

    Where are the details on this 'single US-based institutional investor'? I could use a financial advisor like him. And what 'option trading newsletter' is this? Their timing is impeccable, and I'll gladly pay for the subscription. I'm familiar with plenty of newsletters but none of them would have induced that amount of put buying.

    When David Callahan, the executive editor of Smart CEO, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the SEC regarding the pre-9/11 put options, the response was "We have been advised that the potentially responsive records have been destroyed".

    That kind of 'leverage' inside the Beltway is obviously too valuable to destroy. So much for the 'freedom of information act'. It really is an act.

    I still think getting this story out there on the big screen would get some conversation among the sheeple started. We can get Jennifer Lawrence, the Hunger Games girl, and Zac Efron in the starring roles. I've still not given up hope that Oliver Stone will lower his dose of synthetic heroin and jump back in the directors chair. Hope spring eternal!

    SigToo

    ReplyDelete
  3. SHEBOYGANBOY SIX ~
    >> . . . While this MAY be true, the conclusion is a leap in logic that the author certainly didn't prove with this little bit of evidence. While what he says about deputizing is true, he does not prove that keeping them silent is THE reason these people were deputized.

    I fully agree with you. I do not think his point was proven so succinctly, BUT it does appear highly suspicious and his argument is perfectly rational. If keeping these people silent by force of law was the goal, they couldn't have done it any more effectively.

    Remember, this was an unusual, or to use the article's word, "unprecedented" action:

    The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the SEC took the unprecedented step of deputizing “hundreds, if not thousands, of key players in the private sector.”

    "Unprecedented" = Suspicious (just like the number of "put options" purchased was "suspicious").

    "Deputizing" = "Legally imposed silence"

    He may not have completely PROVEN the point he was attempting to establish, however, he's raised major "red flags" and has taken strides in that direction. It's not ironclad proof of anything, but the prosecuting attorney builds a case against the suspect piece-by-piece.

    We also need to remember that this was an article, where space is limited. I have not read any of his books (but I believe I will) and perhaps he supplies additional evidence in a more detailed examination.

    >> . . . I don't see why American Express would even be mentioned.

    This is another good question, and I too paused to reread that section, because I didn't quite "get" the reference the first time either.

    I think what he was implying (and one would have needed to spend a lot of time studying these sorts of topics to really understand this) is that we must be careful, on guard, never to ASSUME these people are necessarily referring to what we are being led to believe they mean.

    I have seen this time and time and time again in my studies over the years. These devils are brilliant masters of deception and they often use their words to obfuscate and hide the truth while in plain sight.

    They select their words carefully, often misleading us, and often giving themselves protection against a future lawsuit. They want to be able to take the witness stand and, if possible, testify without committing perjury. Example:

    "Didn't you say that American Airlines such-and-such and so-and-so?"

    "No, sir. I merely said 'American'."

    "By 'American', weren't you referring to American Airlines?"

    "No. If memory serves me, I believe I may have been referring to American Express."

    If you think Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" was a dastardly manipulation of language, you should study the history of the 16th Amendment and the way the Income Tax Code is worded. When it comes to diabolical wordplay, they make Clinton seem like a sad piker by comparison!

    So although I agree that the reference to American Express there seemed a bit odd, or out of place, I believe that the author was simply reminding his reader that he or she should NEVER ASSUME these people are addressing the topic at hand, and they must be nailed down, their meaning established word by word.

    But I loved your questions, Sixboy, because they prove that you not only read the article but you read it carefully and thoughtfully. I appreciate that!

    >> . . . Finally, you discovered what it takes to compel us all to read F-FFF: stop your other blog!

    Ha!-Ha! I'm kinda sneaky too, ain't I?

    (Didn't really do that by design, to funnel all the eyes here, but had I thought of it, perhaps I'd have done this a year or two earlier. ;o)

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete
  4. SIGTOO ~
    Thank you! And thanks again for the inspiration to post this. I had hoped to get it up at F-FFF a week or more ago, but I am always pressed for time and everything I do takes longer than I anticipate it will.

    'The Creature From Jekyll Island' is one of my favorite reviews I composed for Amazon.scumbags. I generally felt it was pointless to write a review for a product that already had 100+ reviews posted for it, so I usually focused more on lesser known things.

    My policy was: I won't write a review for the product unless I have something unique to add, or if I have a unique way of packaging the same information.

    Literally for a couple years I wanted to post a review for 'The Creature' but most of what I had to say had already been said in other reviews. I really WANTED 'The Creature' included in my collection of reviews, but I adhered to my own policy.

    But then one day, reflecting on the title and on my love of old monster movies when I was in elementary school and junior high (e.g., 'The Creature From The Black Lagoon', Orson Welles' 'War Of The Worlds', etc.) I suddenly had the idea of building a review around the "monster" theme.

    It all came together so quickly that the review was probably completed in about 15 minutes. I finally felt justified in posting a review for that book and I was pleased with the way it turned out too - instantly becoming one of my favorites - and over the years, I think that review has turned a number of people on to that most essential of American political books.

    Thanks for letting me know! Pleased to hear that 'The Creature' played a part in me making your acquaintance.

    'Spooks, Hoods and the Hidden Elite' - I own that on DVD, and although I've watched it a couple times, I recently thought it's time to view it yet again.

    My Mom was really intrigued by the whole JFK conspiracy even when I was just a little kid; she read a bunch of books and articles about it.

    When I became an adult, naturally, I started looking into that topic as well, but the more I learned about it, the more confused I got. I mean, that is one seriously perplexing puzzle! Talk about trying to see through a puddle of mud.

    Then I found 'Spooks, Hoods and the Hidden Elite' advertised on G. Edward Griffin's website and I bought it, despite the fact that I had already come to the conclusion that I would probably NEVER feel I had a good grasp or understanding of the JFK puzzle. But that documentary made more sense of things than ANYTHING I had previously read or watched.

    That the US Intelligence community conspired with the Mafia to kill JFK seemed pretty certain based on my previous studies, but it was the "motive" that always eluded me.

    Of course John and Robert's dogging of the mob, after the mob had helped, them gave the Mafia a motive, but I couldn't figure out why the CIA would want JFK killed when he was clearly in line with the NWO agenda.

    That program made me see that JFK's outlook on Cuba was not in concert with the overall plan and THAT was most likely the reason he had to go.

    To this day, that's the first educational tool I would recommend to the person who wants to study the JFK assassination. It helped my understanding a lot!

    Say, Sig, have you read either of Mark Gaffney's books, 'The 9/11 Mystery Plane' or 'Black 9/11'? He seems to be a very thorough researcher, and based on this one article I am greatly considering buying both of those books.

    Do you know anything about them? Well worth reading? Does he add much information that hadn't been previously revealed since, say, 2004 or so?

    ~ Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not sure Black 9/11 is available, but no I haven't read either yet. They are on my list though.

    That reminds me of one of your post about works of fiction..."if you like this fiction , read this non-fiction. I'll have to go back to that list again.

    I got sidetracked reading Bob Baer's 'See No Evil' and 'The Man Who Warned America' which is a John O'Neill biography.

    Interesting to see the similarities between a CIA case officer and an FBI special agent in the years leading up to 9/11. Both guys left their respective agencies and ironically O'Neill, a disallusioned (and ignored) counter-terrorism expert was hired as head of security for the WTC three week before 9/11.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think it is also important to understand that one thing out of place is one thing. Two things out of place, is a little stranger. When everything is out of place and obfuscated you know there is NO ACCIDENT. If it were by accident, some things would accidentally work in our favor. When you study the New World Order you find that when it comes to politics that is never the case. They may over reach and have to back track temporarily. But nothing they set out to do is ever totally shut down. That is no accident and that is no coincidence.

    How did it just it come about that they did a trial run the day before. Oh ya, they practiced the day before 9/11 what to do if a plane runs into the building. Coincidence? Why ship out all the evidence (steel and such) as soon as possible out of the country? Coincidence? Why is it that The Clinton administration ignored FBI reports that men of middle eastern nationality were practicing how to fly planes but not land them? I listened to Ms. Rice (Bush's right hand lady) say that she had a report saying Bin Ladin was going to attack the world trade centers? How did Bush just happen to be reading to children in Florida when a plane was heading toward the white house?

    Honestly, one doesn't have to believe in the NWO to look at these things and realize that something is very very wrong with the official story. When you have too many coincidences, you have NO ACCIDENT.

    Just my two cents.

    Br'e r Marc

    ReplyDelete
  7. YES, I've read most of it. Not finished Part I & II of 'A Walk on the Dark Side'. Things are and have been crazy here. No more comment until I've finished reading all and your comments too. BUT, I have been here and am 'in the process'. Do you doubt me?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sig Too ~
    First, before I forget again: In my last comment to you I intended to mention this but it slipped my mind (amazing how much stuffs slips my mind these days). My review for ‘The Creature…’ concluded with this sentence: “Read it now or the Wolfman's gonna getcha!”

    My Brother and I are both big fans of the movie ‘American Graffiti’ and there’s a scene in that movie where Wolfman Jack says over the radio that he wants the blonde in the white T-Bird (Suzanne Sommers) to call his friend Curt (Richard Dreyfuss). He tells her to, “call him or the Wolfman’s gonna getcha.”

    So I threw that line in there at the end of my review as a nod to a classic movie and for any ‘American Graffiti’ fanatics to find.

    >> . . . That reminds me of one of your post about works of fiction..."if you like this fiction , read this non-fiction. I'll have to go back to that list again.

    Oh yeah, that is at ‘Stuffs’ – one of my last 5 or 6 posts, I think.

    I have not read either of those books you mentioned, but I do recall reading about O’Neill and how he was head of security at the WTC. A kinda odd “coincidence”.

    Well, I’m off from work Monday & Tuesday and over those days I intend to look into what’s available by Mark Gaffney – purchasing myself copies. I imagine I will have closed down F-FFF before I’ve finished with whatever Gaffney books I acquire, so posting anything here about it/them is not too likely. But then again, I ALWAYS miscalculate my timing, so who knows?



    BR’ER MARC ~
    >> . . . How did it just come about that they did a trial run the day before. Oh ya, they practiced the day before 9/11 what to do if a plane runs into the building.

    Actually, Br’er, it was an even bigger coincidence than THAT! There were mock terrorist attacks involving airplanes ongoing AT THE VERY SAME TIME that 9/11 was occurring? (The whole thing was meant to add levels of confusion to all the agencies, muddy-up the water, and slow or even prevent “response teams” from acting. “This is all part of the exercise, right?” Which is exactly what it did accomplish in some instances.)

    What are the odds that real attacks would be occurring simultaneously with mock attacks designed for practicing military response? Well, when one considers that the very same thing occurred in England during the subway terrorist attacks – mock subway terrorist activity exercises being engaged in at the very same time the real attacks were occurring – the odds become astronomical! We are dealing with devils!

    >> . . . Honestly, one doesn't have to believe in the NWO to look at these things and realize that something is very very wrong with the official story.

    I couldn’t agree with you more. One of the things I like about the David Icke book is that, in chapters 6-15, he delves deeply into some of the minutiae (beyond just the obvious things like WTC Tower #7, the stock market aberration, the missing airline wreckage, etc.) and the “problems” with “the official lie” just become overwhelming. Of course, one is also fed a heavy dose of his reptilian bloodlines theory (which I neither believe nor disbelieve), and that has probably turned a lot of readers off.

    But your point is well made: no reasonably intelligent person, who is not in a severe state of denial, can possibly investigate 9/11 objectively and come away believing in Uncle Sam’s explanation! As I’ve so often said and written: Uncle Sam's "official" 9/11 story is so full of holes it's useful only as a colander.

    But now we know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.


    FAE ~
    No, I’m not doubting you.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    ‘Loyal American Underground’

    ReplyDelete
  9. OK, good. I'll be back as soon as I can.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've read everything and wish maybe I had not.

    FIRST, let me tell you that the Brad Paisley concert I referred to in the post following this took place in August of 2001. I mention that to give you an idea of my personal 'state of mind' on 9/11/2001. I'm pretty sure I was on the bathroom floor when my daughter informed me to turn on the upstairs TV because something big was happening (we actually had commercial TV at that time for my invalid viewing pleasure). In those next few hours I remember thinking 'what have THEY gone and done now'.I have not changed my position in the ensuing 11 years.

    It was as obvious then as it is to me today that your government was somehow behind/implicated/involved in this mass attack on humanity to further some personal agenda.

    SECOND, I have never delved into some of these 'fact'. I personally didn't need to. I know 'proofs' are important to people, but apparently snapshots, diagrams and sworn confessions are not about to convince or wake up the American people. They believe what they are told, ultimately what they want to believe, claiming to hope for a brighter future. Me, I've seen 'the handwriting on the wall' more than once.

    THIRD, I did find the two articles by Gaffney extremely interesting. Things I had not heard of before nor did I know, but they connected some very personal dots over a run in with THESE people that cleared up several WTF questions of mine.

    Don't ask. It will never happen here or in our other correspondence. Maybe one day I'll write you a letter delivered the same way Muddy flew in.

    Thanks for an informative, if disturbing read.

    ReplyDelete
  11. NWB ~
    >> . . . apparently snapshots, diagrams and sworn confessions are not about to convince or wake up the American people. They believe what they are told, ultimately what they want to believe

    That is entirely correct! Only a very small percentage of the American People is really willing to question the government, objectively examine the evidence, and face the truth regardless of how painful and unwanted it might be.

    Who WANTS to believe that the government desires to enslave its people - especially here in the supposed "land of the free and the home of the brave"?

    The only reason that these devils representing Uncle Sam have been able to get away with what they did is because We The People don't really even WANT to know the truth. Ignorance is bliss and life is much simpler when one just quietly receives all the shit that our "good" Uncle Sam spoons into our weak, atrophied little puddles of grey pudding that we call our "brains".

    Me, I'm just "waitin' for the end of the world" (as we know it).

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete
  12. NEVER in a trillion years would I consider YOUR brain a weak, atrophied little puddle of grey pudding.

    I think the world we thought we knew already ended, but I know what you mean.

    ReplyDelete
  13. BABSKIDDO ~
    Thanks! Although even I will admit that a trillion years is a very long time.

    But, you know, I feel the same about you and all my other friends. (By some strange coincidence, all of my friends seem to be well above average in intelligence.) So, I wasn't referring to you or to me or to any of my other friends; I was implicating ONLY all those OTHER "We The People".
    Ha!-Ha!

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete

... NOTE: COMMENT MODERATION IS ACTIVATED. ...
All submitted comments that do not transgress "Ye Olde Comment Policy" will be posted and responded to as soon as possible. Thanks for taking the time to comment.