Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:26 pm Post subject: Richard Gage and 'Affirming the consequent'...
There's an interesting new (?) website on Richard Gage and his Architects and Engineers for truth. Specifically it deals with the powerpoint demonstration that Gage has been using to 'prove' his demolition claims. Well worth a read - might make some of you truthers think again.
The basic point refers to what Gage, Griffin and others in the truth movement use as the basis for their presentations, the fallacy called 'Affirming the consequent'. Here's the wiki example...
If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
In the truthers' case...
Controlled demolitions (P) have certain features (Q).
The collapses of the 3 WTC buildings have some of these features (Q).
Therefore, the collapse of these 3 buildings were controlled demolitions.(P)
This approach is incredibly widespread in the truth movement - it is on t-shirts and flyers, Griffin uses it, and it is on the front of Gage's website. It's nice to see it clearly expressed just how inadequate it is. Anyone care to defend it, or can we knock it on the head and persuade the rest of the truth movement to drop it?
It is not so much that I would claim that the existence of Q proves P. As a campaign we make no claims to know what really happened.
What is easy peasy to demonstrate is that official investigators (whether we are considering just the WTC collapses or the whole picture) based their investigations on the assumption that the official story of 19 hijackers was true. They failed to consider the possibility that rogue elements within the US and other nations were involved or that the WTC collapses may have been due to factors beyond fire, planes and gravity. The investigations were not independent nor transparent. The US authorities have lied and covered up the true story and changed their own fairy tale numerous times without explanation. This makes many many people understandably suspicious.
This letter written last year to MPs sets out our argument to reinvestigate 9/11. The case does not rely on proving some form of demolition even though there is plenty of evidence to support this possibility. It relies on the failure of the Commission to answer 75% of family campaigners questions and the clear obstruction and cover-up of the truth by both the authorities and the media.
Still, if after the lies you've been fed about the 2000 and 2004 elections, the US sponsored anthrax attacks, the Niger Yellow Cake, the dodgy dossier, the rendition cover-up, the Jessica Lynch lies and on and on and bleeding on, if after all of this, you are happy to believe the word of a Bush appointed commission which clearly ducked and avoided the difficult questions and testimonies, be my guest.
At the end of the day, it is not down to the likes of you or me or Ryan Mackey, a private contractor with NASA (who ever he might be) to prove or disprove what people like Richard Gage or David Ray Griffin have to say. Why does your opinion or Ryan Mackey's opinion carry any more weight? It is down to the US authorities to release all of the pertinent evidence and answer all of the pertinent questions in public, under oath as part of a judicial process. The families of those murdered on 9/11 deserve nothing less. After all if they have nothing to hide......
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:49 pm Post subject:
Yes because it is historically unprecedented for politicians to lie, Bush basically invented government lies. We should be shocked by this.
Odd logic from the truth movement, a cause which has probably attracted more pathological liars than any other cause in recent history. _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Of course lying didn't start with Bush. Did I say that?
However most key opinion formers be they politicians, journalists or assorted 'experts' of various descriptions still describe the world and frame the public debate as if the numerous examples of western officialdom telling bare faced lies in order to justify their criminal behaviour are some how exceptional. Strange aberrations, exceptions to the rule. They are not. They are symptomatic of the fact that US (and western democracies) have been taken over by a criminal unaccountable elite.
What 9/11 (amongst many other examples) illustrates is that the US and other western democracies (along with many non-western and non-democratic nations) are not accountable, not democratic, do not have a free press nor a free judiciary and are up to their necks in bs and its time for a global revolution to get rid of the lot of them.
Now have you got any more words you want put in my mouth?
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:45 pm Post subject:
ian neal wrote:
It is not so much that I would claim that the existence of Q proves P. As a campaign we make no claims to know what really happened.
Not you personally perhaps, but many in the truth movement. Gage and Griffin for example. What do you think of their approach?
Quote:
At the end of the day, it is not down to the likes of you or me or Ryan Mackey, a private contractor with NASA (who ever he might be) to prove or disprove what people like Richard Gage or David Ray Griffin have to say. Why does your opinion or Ryan Mackey's opinion carry any more weight? It is down to the US authorities to release all of the pertinent evidence and answer all of the pertinent questions in public, under oath as part of a judicial process. The families of those murdered on 9/11 deserve nothing less. After all if they have nothing to hide......
But if Ryan Mackey, or another debunker, points out an obvious flaw in the approach of leading truth movement figures, is that not a useful point to make? After all it helps the truth movement, and helps us evaluate the case for a new investigation.
Thanks for posting that letter - I will have a look at it.
The basic point refers to what Gage, Griffin and others in the truth movement use as the basis for their presentations, the fallacy called 'Affirming the consequent'. Here's the wiki example...
If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
In the truthers' case...
Controlled demolitions (P) have certain features (Q).
The collapses of the 3 WTC buildings have some of these features (Q).
Therefore, the collapse of these 3 buildings were controlled demolitions.(P)
This approach is incredibly widespread in the truth movement.
Non-manmade collapses (P) have certain features (Q).
The collapses of the 3 WTC buildings have some of these features (Q).
Therefore, the collapse of these 3 buildings were not controlled demolitions.(P)
This approach is incredibly widespread in the debunkers movement.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:53 am Post subject:
James C wrote:
Non-manmade collapses (P) have certain features (Q).
The collapses of the 3 WTC buildings have some of these features (Q).
Therefore, the collapse of these 3 buildings were not controlled demolitions.(P)
This approach is incredibly widespread in the debunkers movement.
Any actual examples of this approach being used by debunkers?
Non-manmade collapses (P) have certain features (Q).
The collapses of the 3 WTC buildings have some of these features (Q).
Therefore, the collapse of these 3 buildings were not controlled demolitions.(P)
This approach is incredibly widespread in the debunkers movement.
Any actual examples of this approach being used by debunkers?
How about Greening or even Bushwacker with his progressive collapse scenario. Maybe even yourself.
This is what is inferred by each of you and I'm sure I can find many other examples..........The buildings fell to the ground therefore progressive collapse must have occured, therefore controlled demolition was not used.
Can I make it any clearer for you? Why do you insist on this ridiculous line of enquiry when it can be applied to truthers and non-truthers alike. What does it prove?
Non-manmade collapses (P) have certain features (Q).
The collapses of the 3 WTC buildings have some of these features (Q).
Therefore, the collapse of these 3 buildings were not controlled demolitions.(P)
This approach is incredibly widespread in the debunkers movement.
Any actual examples of this approach being used by debunkers?
If we include the Commission, FEMA and NIST in the debunkers camp, then there are loads of examples which illustrate that investigators presumed the official story put out in the immediate aftermath by the CIA was the truth. The failures of investigators to consider the possibility of other agents allied to the Bush Cabal were involved is plainly evident through out the report.
To give an example the 9/11 Commission dismissed allegations of insider trading in the days preceding 9/11. According to the Final Report, the put options of the parent companies of United Airlines were placed by a “US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al-Qaeda” “as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.” With respect to the highly suspicious trading on the parent company of American Airlines, the Commission stated that much of the trades were “traced to a specific US-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.” According to the Commission, “The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 499]
So because A is true (traders had 'no conceivable ties to al-Qaeda') then B (unnamed US based institutional investor is not guilty of insider trading based on prior knowledge of 9/11) is also true. This despite the fact that there is ample evidence showing the US authorities received many relevant warnings of 9/11 in the preceeding months.
Looking at the broader picture as you are, the Kean/Hamilton Commission Report constantly refers to the term 'conspiracy theory' to describe any theory which rejects the official story. But since the official story is in itself a theory concerning a conspiratorial act it proves the one sided nature of the investigation.
This is what Kean & Hamilton said of the Report in their book, 'Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission':
"Often, the truth about a criminal conspiracy comes out in the trial of the conspiractors, where the public is presented with evidence and witness testimony. This time, though, there would be no trial: the nineteen perpetrators were dead, victims of their own atrocities. So we directed our team 1A to approach their task as if putting together the case against the conspirators."
So, in other words, a guilty verdict had been assumed and therefore anything which happened on 9/11 was due to the actions of the hijackers and nothing else.
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:10 pm Post subject:
Not really, in common usage a "conspiracy theory" is not the same thing as arguing that someone "conspired" to do something.
I always wonder why you think desperate, pointless argumentativeness is gonig to advance 911 truth. If it were you guys would be going somewhere rather than fizzling into nothing. _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Not really, in common usage a "conspiracy theory" is not the same thing as arguing that someone "conspired" to do something.
I always wonder why you think desperate, pointless argumentativeness is gonig to advance 911 truth. If it were you guys would be going somewhere rather than fizzling into nothing.
Another silly piece of nonsense from pepik.
Do you have anything meaningful to add or do you post only when you're bored? What was it you were saying about pointless argumentativeness?
Non-manmade collapses (P) have certain features (Q).
The collapses of the 3 WTC buildings have some of these features (Q).
Therefore, the collapse of these 3 buildings were not controlled demolitions.(P)
This approach is incredibly widespread in the debunkers movement.
Any actual examples of this approach being used by debunkers?
If we include the Commission, FEMA and NIST in the debunkers camp, then there are loads of examples which illustrate that investigators presumed the official story put out in the immediate aftermath by the CIA was the truth. The failures of investigators to consider the possibility of other agents allied to the Bush Cabal were involved is plainly evident through out the report.
To give an example the 9/11 Commission dismissed allegations of insider trading in the days preceding 9/11. According to the Final Report, the put options of the parent companies of United Airlines were placed by a “US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al-Qaeda” “as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.” With respect to the highly suspicious trading on the parent company of American Airlines, the Commission stated that much of the trades were “traced to a specific US-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.” According to the Commission, “The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 499]
So because A is true (traders had 'no conceivable ties to al-Qaeda') then B (unnamed US based institutional investor is not guilty of insider trading based on prior knowledge of 9/11) is also true. This despite the fact that there is ample evidence showing the US authorities received many relevant warnings of 9/11 in the preceeding months.
You would have a valid point, Ian, if that was an argument used by the Commission, but it is not. You must look at the context in which that comment was made, which was as a footnote to a section in the report discussing the financing of the operation. The relevant part reads,
"There also have been claims that al Qaeda financed itself through manipulation of the stock market based on its advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Exhaustive investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, FBI, and other agencies have uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions.130"
Note 130 is the paragraph you quote. So what the Commission is saying is that the put options were purchased by a "US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al-Qaeda" so the suggestion that they were a source of finance for al Qaeda cannot be correct.
Their conclusion that there was no insider trading is based on other evidence, the buying of AA shares by that particular institution, the recommendations of the options trading newsletter and the investigations of the "SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry"
They could also have mentioned that on September 5 Reuters quoted analysts as saying that "a further deterioration" in airline financials was probable and AMR's announcement two days later that its third- and fourth-quarter losses would be larger even than already forecast. The effect was that immediately airline analysts downgraded AMR, as did hotel specialists, and a wave of shorting hit the travel industry (people even took positions in Royal Caribbean Cruise lines and Cruise Lines Carnival Corps).
people even took positions in Royal Caribbean Cruise lines and Cruise Lines Carnival Corps
Yes, and the SEC investigated this as the activity was suspicious.
Trading Probe More Bad News for Cruise Lines
Wednesday, October 10th 2001
Miami Daily Business Review (also known as South Florida Business Review)
By Anika Myers
“Cruise Lines Carnival Corp. (NYSE: CCL) and Royal Caribbean Cruise lines (NYSE: RCL) received some unwanted publicity last week after the US Securities and Exchange Commission Announced an Investigation of suspicious trading in 2 Miami based companies.
The regulators are seeking any connection between terrorist groups and short selling of the cruise lines’ shares, along with the shares of 36 other companies, immediately before and after the terrorist attacks.
The SEC hasn’t contacted representatives of either cruise line about the progress of the investigation, according to representatives from both cruise lines. Both lines declined to comment on the investigation.
The probe follows a spate of bad news for both firms. Since s11, Royal Caribbean and Carnival have announced price discounts to spur reservations. Fluctuating stock prices and investment firms’ bearish-ness about their debt ratings has battered both firms.
RCL last week announced imminent layoffs of up to 100 local employees and that it may delay the construction of new ships.
For it’s part, the SEC—which declined to comment on investigation—on O3 actually announced plans to ease restrictions on shorting well-known stocks.
The cruise lines hope to assuage potential customers fears about safety by heightening internal security.
Mike Crye, the president of the International Council of Cruise Lines, in testimony before the US Senate, explained that passenger baggage and cargo are now screened closely and that cruise ships are working w/ the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service to insure no fugitives board.
ICCL spokesman Molly Mc Pherson declined to comment on any external or protective measures that cruise ships might take."
There's a bit more about the SEC's investigation here
AMR and UAL had also posted profit warnings earlier in 2001 and yet most airline share prices rose despite this news with no signs of short selling as this article shows - here
It also looks like the first reaction to the spate of short selling was a belief that the terrorists had indeed profited if you read this.
Quote:
Regulators believe terrorists may have sold short shares likely to be affected by the attacks, placing "put options" to sell at a fixed price in the knowledge that the market was about to fall sharply.
A spokesman for German stock market watchdog BAWe, said: "We are taking a routine look at the share prices of various stocks. We're studying movements in trade and in prices in the days leading up to the attacks."
German authorities are said to have informed America's Securities & Exchange Commission of "suspect movements" in Munich Re's shares, which have lost 22pc during the last two months.
Asked about suggestions that terrorists had profited from the attacks, US Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill said: "As part of our general programme to go after these rotten people, we're going to track down every terrorist and expected terrorist and we're going to confiscate their money wherever it is in the world.
"I think we'll have the co-operation of every financial institution in every civilised society in the world."
If such short selling were routine following profit warnings, why did these flag up as being so erroneous and wouldn't everyone do it? Many people make a lot of money betting on the stock market but these volumes of trade were quite exceptional.
Yes indeed, the activity in the stocks and the futures market did look very suspicious, that is why it was investigated by the SEC and others, however they did not find any evidence of insider trading. Rather they attributed the activity to the causes I gave. Also of course the dot.com meltdown was hitting all shares and business and holiday travel shares in particular, which is probably why the September bad news had more effect than that earlier in the year.
Of course the standard truther response would be to say the explanations are inadequate and yet more people must have been involved in the plot, in this case covering up insider dealing, rather than murder.
This is rather to stray from the point though, which is that the 9/11 Commission did not argue backwards from the lack of connection to al Qaeda that the US institution was not insider trading, as Ian thought.
however they did not find any evidence of insider trading
Do you have any proof of this other than they just couldn't find anything?
Let's look again at the summary on 911 Research:
Quote:
The SEC's Investigation
Shortly after the attack the SEC circulated a list of stocks to securities firms around the world seeking information. A widely circulated article states that the stocks flagged by the SEC included those of the following corporations: American Airlines, United Airlines, Continental Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, US Airways airlines, Martin, Boeing, Lockheed Martin Corp., AIG, American Express Corp, American International Group, AMR Corporation, AXA SA, Bank of America Corp, Bank of New York Corp, Bank One Corp, Cigna Group, CNA Financial, Carnival Corp, Chubb Group, John Hancock Financial Services, Hercules Inc., L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc., LTV Corporation, Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc., MetLife, Progressive Corp., General Motors, Raytheon, W.R. Grace, Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Lone Star Technologies, American Express, the Citigroup Inc., Royal & Sun Alliance, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Vornado Reality Trust, Morgan Stanley, Dean Witter & Co., XL Capital Ltd., and Bear Stearns.
An October 19 article in the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the SEC, after a period of silence, had undertaken the unprecedented action of deputizing hundreds of private officials in its investigation:
The proposed system, which would go into effect immediately, effectively deputizes hundreds, if not thousands, of key players in the private sector.
...
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.
Michael Ruppert, a former LAPD officer, explains the consequences of this action:
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 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.
Interpreting and Reinterpreting the Data
An analysis of the press reports on the subject of apparent insider trading related to the attack shows a trend, with early reports highlighting the anomalies, and later reports excusing them. In his book Crossing the Rubicon Michael C. Ruppert illustrates this point by first excerpting a number of reports published shortly after the attack:
A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.
-- CBS News, September 26
A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.
-- CBS News, September 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 September 7 and September 10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares.
Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put options in the four trading days before the attacks.
Just look at those jumps in put option trading. Just look at how many companies the SEC investigated and how secret this effort became. Can you explain why only UAL and AA were affected and no other airline?
Now no one here can explain these; not me, not you, therefore you cannot with any certainty suggest the Commission didn't simply ignore the question of insider trading from anyone within the US just because the link to al qaeda was ruled out.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject:
On the insider trading angle, at the end of the day, it's another of those areas that truthers are dissatisifed with "because it's a cover-up". The first thing that needs to be established is how abnormal those put options levels were - the statistics quoted are incredibly misleading. I might go to church below the daily average for all of the week, then on Sunday I go to church 7 times the average!!!
Quote:
Can I make it any clearer for you? Why do you insist on this ridiculous line of enquiry when it can be applied to truthers and non-truthers alike. What does it prove?
The fact is that whoever uses it, it is a fallacy - it 'appears' to prove something when quite obviously it doesn't. When debunkers or truthers use it it is either an ignorant mistake or plain deception. So let's unite in condemning that approach - there are better ways to make a better case! Can you agree with that?
The statistics on insider trading aren't misleading just lacking in meaning.
What would allow the public to assess the significance on these statistics is to know how much trade in put options fluctuates around a mean or median.
So does a 60 times increase in put options happen on average one day / every month or one day / every year or every 10 years or 10000 years, then we would know just how unusual and hence suspicous these trades were. Factor in the probability that the unusual trading focussed on 9/11 affected companies and the chances of this trading being just another of the many co-incidences of 9/11 becomes increasingly remote.
however they did not find any evidence of insider trading
Do you have any proof of this other than they just couldn't find anything?
Let's look again at the summary on 911 Research:
Quote:
The SEC's Investigation
Shortly after the attack the SEC circulated a list of stocks to securities firms around the world seeking information. A widely circulated article states that the stocks flagged by the SEC included those of the following corporations: American Airlines, United Airlines, Continental Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, US Airways airlines, Martin, Boeing, Lockheed Martin Corp., AIG, American Express Corp, American International Group, AMR Corporation, AXA SA, Bank of America Corp, Bank of New York Corp, Bank One Corp, Cigna Group, CNA Financial, Carnival Corp, Chubb Group, John Hancock Financial Services, Hercules Inc., L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc., LTV Corporation, Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc., MetLife, Progressive Corp., General Motors, Raytheon, W.R. Grace, Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Lone Star Technologies, American Express, the Citigroup Inc., Royal & Sun Alliance, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Vornado Reality Trust, Morgan Stanley, Dean Witter & Co., XL Capital Ltd., and Bear Stearns.
An October 19 article in the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the SEC, after a period of silence, had undertaken the unprecedented action of deputizing hundreds of private officials in its investigation:
The proposed system, which would go into effect immediately, effectively deputizes hundreds, if not thousands, of key players in the private sector.
...
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.
Michael Ruppert, a former LAPD officer, explains the consequences of this action:
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 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.
Interpreting and Reinterpreting the Data
An analysis of the press reports on the subject of apparent insider trading related to the attack shows a trend, with early reports highlighting the anomalies, and later reports excusing them. In his book Crossing the Rubicon Michael C. Ruppert illustrates this point by first excerpting a number of reports published shortly after the attack:
A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.
-- CBS News, September 26
A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.
-- CBS News, September 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 September 7 and September 10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares.
Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put options in the four trading days before the attacks.
Just look at those jumps in put option trading. Just look at how many companies the SEC investigated and how secret this effort became. Can you explain why only UAL and AA were affected and no other airline?
Now no one here can explain these; not me, not you, therefore you cannot with any certainty suggest the Commission didn't simply ignore the question of insider trading from anyone within the US just because the link to al qaeda was ruled out.
The Commission did not ignore the question of insider trading, it asked the SEC to investigate. The SEC investigated and found no evidence. LINK
Washington, D.C., July 22, 2004 — The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9-11 Commission) has submitted its final report, which includes its review and conclusions concerning whether any trading in the United States securities markets was based on advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission cooperated fully with the 9-11 Commission and provided information based on the following actions.
On Sept. 12, 2001, the Securities and Exchange Commission began an investigation to determine whether there was evidence that anyone who had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on September 11 sought to profit from that knowledge by trading in United States securities markets. In the course of that review, we did not develop any evidence suggesting that anyone who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks traded on the basis of that information. In the course of our investigation, we examined more than 9.5 million securities transactions that took place during the weeks preceding September 11. Along with the New York Stock Exchange, NASD, the American Stock Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the Pacific Exchange, and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, we reviewed trading in securities and derivative products of 103 companies in six industry groups with trading in seven markets. We also reviewed trading in 32 exchange traded funds and broad and narrow indices. In addition to working with the exchanges and NASD, we worked with criminal law enforcement authorities, including the Department of Justice and the FBI, as well as our regulatory counterparts in the U.S. and abroad. Finally, we sought and obtained information from the legal and compliance departments at securities firms and other financial institutions to determine whether any unusual trading activity had been observed by their staffs in the period prior to Sept. 11, 2001.
As I said, you can either accept that no evidence of insider trading could be found, or add the SEC and those who worked with it to the army of conspirators that truthers believe were ready and willing to cover up the murder of their fellow citizens by their government.
The Commission did not ignore the question of insider trading, it asked the SEC to investigate.
Excuse me but isn't that what I've said all along, that the SEC conducted an investigation?
I'm asking for further proof other than the SEC's conclusion which considering they looked at more than 9.5 million transactions (I wonder how long that took?) took the form of a statement written over two paragrahs using approximately 200 words! Surely such a brief analysis wouldn't stand up in court.
There were numerous reports of explosions in the towers made by people lucky enough to survive. Defenders of the official position have always maintained that "things explode in fires" despite many of these explosions having been reported on floors many levels below the original impacts and therefore a long way from any fire.
From a page by David Ray Griffin, analysing firefighters' testimonies. (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-Twin-Towers26jan06.htm)
Quote:
Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory said: “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . Lieutenant Evangelista . . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.”36
Flashes were reported in the north tower by Captain Karin Deshore, who said: “Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash.”37
Demolition Rings: At this point, Deshore’s account moved to another standard phenomenon seen by those who watch controlled demolitions: explosion rings, in which a series of explosions runs rapidly around a building. Deshore’s next words were: “Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."38
An explosion ring (or belt) was also described by firefighter Richard Banaciski. Speaking of the south tower, he said: “[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”39
A description of what appeared to be a ring of explosions was also given by Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick, who said: "We looked up at the [south tower] . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up . . . . It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV."40
Now watch this video - I don't know who filmed this and why it has taken so long to appear. Thus I cannot say it is genuine although I have no reason to believe it isn't.
At around 20 seconds you can clearly see flashes all around the tower as well as material being ejected. This would certainly seem to back up any demolition claims being made .....
The collapse of both towers started on the impact floors, and progressed smoothly down to the bottom, as far as any visual evidence has shown. No floors above or below the impact points are observed to move until the collapse started, and there were no independent failures ahead of the collapse wave while the structures are failing, that is not plumes of smoke but actual failures.
Effects observed from lower floors prior to the collapse therefore do nothing whatsoever to support the case for controlled demolition. If they were demolition charges they had no observable effects on the buildings either at the time or when the collapse wave reached their position. If they were demolition charges that had no observable effects, what possible reason could there be to set them off in advance?
The collapse of both towers started on the impact floors, and progressed smoothly down to the bottom, as far as any visual evidence has shown. No floors above or below the impact points are observed to move until the collapse started, and there were no independent failures ahead of the collapse wave while the structures are failing, that is not plumes of smoke but actual failures.
Effects observed from lower floors prior to the collapse therefore do nothing whatsoever to support the case for controlled demolition. If they were demolition charges they had no observable effects on the buildings either at the time or when the collapse wave reached their position. If they were demolition charges that had no observable effects, what possible reason could there be to set them off in advance?
Can you see the explosions in the film? Do you think they are explosions?
The collapse of both towers started on the impact floors, and progressed smoothly down to the bottom, as far as any visual evidence has shown. No floors above or below the impact points are observed to move until the collapse started, and there were no independent failures ahead of the collapse wave while the structures are failing, that is not plumes of smoke but actual failures.
Effects observed from lower floors prior to the collapse therefore do nothing whatsoever to support the case for controlled demolition. If they were demolition charges they had no observable effects on the buildings either at the time or when the collapse wave reached their position. If they were demolition charges that had no observable effects, what possible reason could there be to set them off in advance?
Can you see the explosions in the film? Do you think they are explosions?
It is hard to tell what that film shows, but there seem to be flashes at the point you mention. If those are explosions why are they not seen on any other film? There is no audio to help. It may be just sunlight on glass, which would explain why it was only seen from that angle.
The collapse of both towers started on the impact floors, and progressed smoothly down to the bottom, as far as any visual evidence has shown. No floors above or below the impact points are observed to move until the collapse started, and there were no independent failures ahead of the collapse wave while the structures are failing, that is not plumes of smoke but actual failures.
Effects observed from lower floors prior to the collapse therefore do nothing whatsoever to support the case for controlled demolition. If they were demolition charges they had no observable effects on the buildings either at the time or when the collapse wave reached their position. If they were demolition charges that had no observable effects, what possible reason could there be to set them off in advance?
Can you see the explosions in the film? Do you think they are explosions?
It is hard to tell what that film shows, but there seem to be flashes at the point you mention. If those are explosions why are they not seen on any other film? There is no audio to help. It may be just sunlight on glass, which would explain why it was only seen from that angle.
Not just the flashes but the smoke and the debris that appears to drop at one point (23 seconds).
And please explain how sunlight flashes can appear in random spots unless there was a host of people opening and closing windows very fast ......
Not many cameras were pointed at any other place than the tops of the towers.
The collapse of both towers started on the impact floors, and progressed smoothly down to the bottom, as far as any visual evidence has shown. No floors above or below the impact points are observed to move until the collapse started, and there were no independent failures ahead of the collapse wave while the structures are failing, that is not plumes of smoke but actual failures.
Effects observed from lower floors prior to the collapse therefore do nothing whatsoever to support the case for controlled demolition. If they were demolition charges they had no observable effects on the buildings either at the time or when the collapse wave reached their position. If they were demolition charges that had no observable effects, what possible reason could there be to set them off in advance?
Can you see the explosions in the film? Do you think they are explosions?
It is hard to tell what that film shows, but there seem to be flashes at the point you mention. If those are explosions why are they not seen on any other film? There is no audio to help. It may be just sunlight on glass, which would explain why it was only seen from that angle.
Not just the flashes but the smoke and the debris that appears to drop at one point (23 seconds).
And please explain how sunlight flashes can appear in random spots unless there was a host of people opening and closing windows very fast ......
Not many cameras were pointed at any other place than the tops of the towers.
There were cameras everywhere, we have close-ups, long shots and everything in between, but this is the only film that seems to show those particular effects. There also appear to be smaller random flashes all over the face of the tower at the point you mention, and I have no idea what might be causing those, have you? Why do you think this film supports the idea of CD, given what I said earlier?
The collapse of both towers started on the impact floors, and progressed smoothly down to the bottom, as far as any visual evidence has shown. No floors above or below the impact points are observed to move until the collapse started, and there were no independent failures ahead of the collapse wave while the structures are failing, that is not plumes of smoke but actual failures.
Effects observed from lower floors prior to the collapse therefore do nothing whatsoever to support the case for controlled demolition. If they were demolition charges they had no observable effects on the buildings either at the time or when the collapse wave reached their position. If they were demolition charges that had no observable effects, what possible reason could there be to set them off in advance?
Can you see the explosions in the film? Do you think they are explosions?
It is hard to tell what that film shows, but there seem to be flashes at the point you mention. If those are explosions why are they not seen on any other film? There is no audio to help. It may be just sunlight on glass, which would explain why it was only seen from that angle.
Not just the flashes but the smoke and the debris that appears to drop at one point (23 seconds).
And please explain how sunlight flashes can appear in random spots unless there was a host of people opening and closing windows very fast ......
Not many cameras were pointed at any other place than the tops of the towers.
There were cameras everywhere, we have close-ups, long shots and everything in between, but this is the only film that seems to show those particular effects. There also appear to be smaller random flashes all over the face of the tower at the point you mention, and I have no idea what might be causing those, have you? Why do you think this film supports the idea of CD, given what I said earlier?
So do you see the smoke and debris? A simple yes or no will do.
This film supports the idea of explosions in the towers (to which there were many witnesses) unrelated to the fires many stories higher . Explosions support the idea of the towers being demolished.
I see something on that film which looks rather like flashes, smoke and debris. The fact that it is not seen on on any other film gives me severe doubts about it, as do the random pattern of light flashes apparently seen all over the face of the tower.
Why do you suppose that the anyone bringing the towers down by controlled demolition, who would be clever enough to somehow plant explosives invisibly all over an occupied building, and somehow prevent them from being destroyed by the aircraft impacts or subsequent fires, would set off explosions in advance of the start of collapse that have no obervable effects either at the time or when the collapse wave reaches that particular area?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
