View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
TRUTH Moderate Poster
Joined: 15 Feb 2006 Posts: 376
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:38 am Post subject: What Did Britain Know About 911? |
|
|
One of the many perplexing things about the events that unfolded on the day of September 11 last year was the rapid speed at which British Prime Minister Tony Blair drew his own conclusions about the nature of the attacks. His all but his instant offering of completely unqualified support for the Bush administration was remarkable.
For some it seemed that a more reassuring approach would have been to allow a delay of a day or two to receive Foreign Office and intelligence briefings - in order to fully consider what was believed to have happened, who was behind it, and what should be the appropriate response.
One eminent foreign policy expert warned the next day that Britain's immediate pledge to stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with America in the aftermath of the attacks could have far-reaching implications for foreign relations. Professor Bulmer-Thomas, Director of London's Royal Institute of International Affairs, told the BBC 12 September that the consequences of offering such strong support for potential US retaliation could not be accurately gauged at such an early stage: "The danger is they do it far too early, before the facts are in."
By contrast, however, Blair gave the impression of being a man who did not need any briefings. Was this because, unbeknown to the rest of us, Blair already knew in advance exactly what the score was?
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/WATbritain911.htm |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006 Posts: 988
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We've had no comment from our 'dear leader' about the fact the FBI have no hard evidence to link Osama Bin Ladin with the events of 9/11.As we all know, he was flitting round the globe, like Bush's foreign secretary, telling any world leader who'd listen to him that he had 'smoking gun' intelligence(snigger) that proved OBL was guilty of planning and ordering the attacks.
He's gotten his 'thingy caught in his flies' so many times by slavishly toeing the Washington line, you'd think he'd learn WMD, Saddam400K plus mass graves...etc. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
bratcat808 Minor Poster
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 Posts: 34 Location: Tiny rock in big water
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:28 pm Post subject: Re: What Did Britain Know About 911? |
|
|
TRUTH wrote: | One of the many perplexing things about the events that unfolded on the day of September 11 last year was the rapid speed at which British Prime Minister Tony Blair drew his own conclusions about the nature of the attacks. His all but his instant offering of completely unqualified support for the Bush administration was remarkable.
For some it seemed that a more reassuring approach would have been to allow a delay of a day or two to receive Foreign Office and intelligence briefings - in order to fully consider what was believed to have happened, who was behind it, and what should be the appropriate response.
One eminent foreign policy expert warned the next day that Britain's immediate pledge to stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with America in the aftermath of the attacks could have far-reaching implications for foreign relations. Professor Bulmer-Thomas, Director of London's Royal Institute of International Affairs, told the BBC 12 September that the consequences of offering such strong support for potential US retaliation could not be accurately gauged at such an early stage: "The danger is they do it far too early, before the facts are in."
By contrast, however, Blair gave the impression of being a man who did not need any briefings. Was this because, unbeknown to the rest of us, Blair already knew in advance exactly what the score was?
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/WATbritain911.htm |
Considering the far reaching scope of this event, and the 'complicity' I see possible in my own government, it is not impossible to consider that other high level officials across the globe might also be involved to some degree. I am not saying I have any reason to suspect or believe that Blair was involved, but the possibility remains, given the alliance he so strongly advocates.
Blair may change his devotion to Bush (for his own political gain) if the growing trend of disbelief and faith in the current administration in the US continues to gain momentum. Recent passage of two bills by our congress that supersede the Constitution and basic freedoms Bush claims to be advocating in his "war on terror", will get more people to notice this trend of "Do as I say, not as I do!" and back away from supporting the "US led Military War on Terrorism". IMO, this would be a good thing, despite the negatives, because there would be more call for accountability in all of this, and under real and persistent pressure, the truth WILL prevail.
and BTW.. don't look behind the curtain.. there is nothing of interest there! The great Wizard of Oz has spoken! _________________ 9/11 Truth
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." T. Jefferson |
|
Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 595 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suspect other governments were also involved but as for the British, I'm absloutely certain they were. Whether this was at the Blair level (not the highest office in the land) I'm not sure. But if it wasn't then he's remiss in not making sure he was appraised of it. So he's either complicit or not good at this job. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chek Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IronSnot wrote: | I suspect other governments were also involved but as for the British, I'm absloutely certain they were. Whether this was at the Blair level (not the highest office in the land) I'm not sure. But if it wasn't then he's remiss in not making sure he was appraised of it. So he's either complicit or not good at this job. |
I'm not certain that there is any other way to see this other than that collaborators have been seeded into other governments over time.
Blair here, Harper in Canada and Howard in Australia; (the main US allies)
all essentially right-wing hijackings of the traditionally (if only relatively) 'progressive' political parties in those countries;
all towing the war line against the wishes of the majority of their own people.
It might lead a reasonable person to speculate that an agenda only given legitimacy by the mythical War on (although I prefer 'of') Terror is obviously being adhered to. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Wokeman Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 881 Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:39 pm Post subject: "Put" options |
|
|
A "put" option is a leveraged bet that a stock price is going to fall precipitously (a "call" option is the opposite bet). One option covers 100 shares of a given stock and usually has an expiry date of four months. For a very small investment — sometimes a dollar a share — a speculator can purchase the right to sell a stock at a fixed price during the contract period even though he doesn't have to own the stock when the option is placed. So if one were to place a put option contract on American Airlines at $30 per share and the stock fell to $18 a share a few days or a few weeks later, one could go out and purchase one hundred shares at $18 and sell them immediately at $30 per share netting a $12 profit per share or $1,200. This is what happened on a far larger scale and with many companies around the world on 9/11.
Insider trading, or suspicious trades indicating possible 9/11 foreknowledge, were reported in the USA, Germany, BRITAIN, Canada, Japan, (8 times above normal level on the Osaka exchange) Switzerland, Hong Kong, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Singapore. Official investigations were announced in eight of those countries. Details of international trades have not been disclosed, but shares of American companies are routinely purchased through foreign exchanges.
Mike Ruppet, quoted in CROSSING THE RUBICON
According to Cleveland Plain Dealer's Jonathan Schrader:
While trading fluctuations happen all the time for no apparent reason, it seems there's certainly something here. It's interesting that they thought they could get away with it.
Back to Mike Ruppert: Indeed, no one could hope to get away with it unless they controlled all the enforcement mechanisms that would be called in afterward. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bratcat808 Minor Poster
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 Posts: 34 Location: Tiny rock in big water
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:56 pm Post subject: Re: "Put" options |
|
|
Wokeman wrote: | Back to Mike Ruppert: Indeed, no one could hope to get away with it unless they controlled all the enforcement mechanisms that would be called in afterward. |
Since this seems like such a reasonable thing to be addressed, who is responsible for investigating stock fraud? _________________ 9/11 Truth
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." T. Jefferson |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chek Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:07 pm Post subject: Re: "Put" options |
|
|
bratcat808 wrote: | Wokeman wrote: | Back to Mike Ruppert: Indeed, no one could hope to get away with it unless they controlled all the enforcement mechanisms that would be called in afterward. |
Since this seems like such a reasonable thing to be addressed, who is responsible for investigating stock fraud? |
Similar to the same people who run the drug trade that they also enforce - the intelligence agencies.
In the case of US stocks, the SEC (lost a lot of info in WTC7) and the FBI (ditto). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 595 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
chek wrote: | Blair here, Harper in Canada and Howard in Australia; (the main US allies)
all essentially right-wing hijackings of the traditionally (if only relatively) 'progressive' political parties in those countries; |
Howard is the leader of the Liberal Party, which despite the name is just a Tory party.
Howard was in Washington DC on 9/11, and there's an interesting story about late changes to travel arrangments associated with his visit there. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|