Millions of Americans Who Avoid Banks Offer a Peek at the Underground Economy

Much of the country buys, sells, and makes a living outside official scrutiny

| September 15, 2015

https://reason.com/archives/2015/09/15/millions-of-americans-who-avoid-banks-of

What’s your preference when making purchases? Do you still swipe a card? Do you prefer to pay with an app on your phone? Or are you one of those brave trendsetters trying to make a go of it by using bitcoin for day-to-day purchases?

It’s a changing world, and an increasingly digital one. Money often seems to be embodied more by the brisk transfer of electronic signals than by the anonymous exchange of paper notes and metal coins. Denmark actually plans to shut down the printing presses (the physical ones—don’t expect the money supply to suffer any restrictions) and some economists think everybody else should follow suit.

Who uses the stuff anymore, anyway? Right?

Well, except for that vast chunk of the population that actually prefers cash as the primary—or even exclusive—means of exchange. Many Americans happily and quietly avoid banks and trendy purchasing choices in favor of old-fashioned paper money. Lots of business gets done that way, though nobody knows just how much—which may be the whole point.

Last week, the Albuquerque Journal pointed out that over a third of households in the city either avoid banks entirely (the “unbanked”) or else keep a checking account but do much of their business through cash, check-cashing shops, pawn shops, money orders, and other “alternative financial products” (the “underbanked”).

A few weeks earlier, the Kansas City Star reported a similar local situation, with 12 percent of households and 45 percent of African-American families completely avoiding banks.

In both cities, the phenomenon is growing.

Nationally, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), 7.7 percent of U.S. households are unbanked and 20 percent are underbanked. Another 5.3 percent are unknown. Not having enough money to open an account is an understandable and widely cited reason to not do business with banks. Use of banks rises along with income—though 5 percent of households making $30,000-$50,000 are still unbanked and 13 percent of those making over $75,000 remain underbanked. Maybe that’s because 34.2 of respondents to an FDIC survey say they don’t like or trust banks, and another 30.8 percent find bank fees too hefty or unpredictable to tolerate. Twenty-six percent cite privacy as a reason for keeping clear of banks – bankers say that increased federal reporting and documentation requirements drive many customers away.

“A lot of people are afraid of Uncle Sam,” Greg Levenson, president and CEO of Southwest Capital Bank, told the Albuquerque Journal.

So, many people operating outside the traditional financial system avoid the institutions by choice. They’d rather deal in cash, and use prepaid cards when plastic is an absolute must.

And deal they do. The unbanked may take a pass from traditional financial institutions, but that doesn’t mean they’re refraining from buying, selling, or making a living.

“A third of our population unbanked and underbanked negatively impacts consumer spending, is a clear sign of alienation and indicates the extent of our underground economy,” David Seely, president and CEO of Kirtland Federal Credit Union, told the Journal.

Edgar L. Feige an emeritus professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, agrees. His research suggests that the U.S. government wildly overestimates the amount of currency circulating overseas; that domestic holdings of cash dollars add up to $2,300 for every man, woman, and child in the country. “[L]arge amounts of cash are employed to undertake transactions that individuals and firms prefer to hide from the government either to avoid taxes, regulations or punishment for illegal activities. Cash, being an anonymous medium of exchange leaving no paper trail, is the logical choice for undertaking such transactions.”

At the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, Yi Wen, an assistant vice president and economist, and Maria A. Arias, a research associate, have also commented on the “private sector’s dramatic increase in their willingness to hoard money instead of spend it” in the official economy.

Unsurprisingly, Feige’s estimate that up to 23 percent “of total reportable income may not properly be reported to the IRS” is larger than the official number.

Further evidence that the unbanked are not thoroughgoing conscientious objectors to economic activity lies in the recent disconnect between official employment and income numbers on the one hand, and the money passing through people’s fingers on the other.

“Despite the sharp drop off in the labor force participation rate, consumer spending has nevertheless continued to surge,” wrote Bernard Baumohl, chief economist at the Economic Outlook Group, two years ago. “One explanation is that many of those who have left the labor force since the last recession have managed to earn income in the shadow economy and their spending still shows up in the official retail sales and personal consumption data.”

It’s a fair bet that those who “have managed to earn income in the shadow economy” and want to keep their income unreported to the feds and undiminished by fees are heavily overrepresented among the unbanked.

In July of this year, Baumohl reported that robust economic activity and weak official employment and income figures continue to be divorced from one another.

It’s good news that there’s more prosperity out there than we measure with official figures. That many Americans steer clear of banks doesn’t mean that they’re all suffering. A good number of them are making a living under the radar, and choosing to shield their money from prying eyes and high fees the same way.

There are costs to avoiding banks, just as there are costs to working off the books. Cashing checks can be expensive, bank accounts are often safer than shoeboxes, and it’s difficult to take out loans to build a business are make a big purchase when you have no financial history to speak of.

“Lacking access to government-insured savings or opportunities to build credit, they not only incur risk of theft, fraud and loss, but by using alternative financial service (AFS) providers such as check cashers or payday lenders, they also become prey to expensive predatory products and services that make it harder for them to achieve financial security,” the Pew Health Group scolded in a report criticizing those who spurn financial officialdom.

But most people aren’t idiots. When they avoid expensive, snoopy financial institutions, it’s because they’ve decided the benefits outweigh the costs. And since the rest of us have very little idea of what they’re all up to—one of those benefits, for sure—who are we to say they’re wrong?

J.D. Tuccille is a former managing editor of Reason.com and current contributing editor.

Advertisements
Posted in External Sources, Solutions | Tagged | Leave a comment

New Planned Parenthood Video: Official Admits To Selling “Fresh” Aborted Baby Eyes, Hearts And “Gonads”

“It’s an issue that you might imagine we’re not really that comfortable talking about on email”
 http://www.infowars.com/new-planned-parenthood-video-official-admits-to-selling-fresh-aborted-baby-eyes-hearts-and-gonads/

by Steve Watson | Infowars.com | September 15, 2015\


A brand new undercover video was released today by the Center For Medical Progress, further exposing Planned Parenthood’s involvement in the trade of aborted fetal tissue and organs.

In the footage, Dr. Carolyn Westhoff, Senior Medical Advisor for PPFA, admits that Planned Parenthood provides buyers with hearts, eyes and “gonads” of unborn babies.

The officials on tape also intimate, once again, that the organisation is using methods that contravene federal law to sell body parts for profit.

“We’ve just been working with people who want particular tissues, like, you know, they want cardiac, or they want eyes, or they want neural,” says Dr. Westhoff, speaking to a reporter who she believes to be a potential buyer.

“Certainly, everything we provide–oh, gonads! Oh my God, gonads. Everything we provide is fresh.” Westhoff blurts, as if she’s selling organic produce in a Grocery store.

“Obviously, we would have the potential for a huge P.R. issue in doing this,” she also states, while offering to contact “national office abortion people” from Planned Parenthood on behalf of the potential buyer.

The footage also shows Deborah VanDerhei, the National Director for CAPS, a Planned Parenthood internal committe, referring to financial transactions for fetal tissue as “donation for remuneration.”

“I have been talking to the executive director of the National Abortion Federation, we’re trying to figure this out as an industry, about how we’re going to manage remuneration, because the headlines would be a disaster.” VanDerhei states.

No kidding.

“We have independent colleagues who generate a fair amount of income doing this.” VanDerhei also states, adding that “It’s an issue that you might imagine we’re not really that comfortable talking about on email.”

VanDerhei is also recorded speaking with Pennsylvania based Planned Parenthood official Vanessa Russo. Russo notes, “A company like this that wants to give our organization money for the tissue – I think that that’s a valid exchange, and that that’s okay.” VanDerhei nods in agreement and mutters “Mmhmmm.”

In another piece of footage, Vanessa Cullins, the Vice President of External Medical Affairs for Planned Parenthood, issues a warning about possible exposure of the fetal tissue trade.

“This is important. This could destroy your organization and us, if we don’t time conversations correctly,” she is recorded telling a reporter she believes to be a prospective buyer.

Commenting on the new footage, head of CMP David Daleiden noted “From email black-outs to contorted oxymorons like ‘donation for remuneration,’ the lengths to which Planned Parenthood leadership will go to cover-up their illegal sale of aborted baby parts are nothing less than the desperation of a guilty conscience.”

“Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards openly admits they receive ‘$60 per tissue specimen,’ and their contracts with StemExpress offer payments per fetus ‘determined in the clinic to be usable.’” Daleiden adds.

“Planned Parenthood runs their abortion and baby parts business in open disregard for the law and should be prosecuted immediately. Their taxpayer funding should be reassigned to Federally Qualified Health Centers, which provide more and comprehensive health services at locations outnumbering Planned Parenthood 20 to 1.” Daleiden further urges.

As the House plans to vote on a bill to freeze Planned Parenthood funding in the coming days, Senator Rand Paul issued an appeal Monday to pastors nationwide to get behind the move to defund the abortion organisation.

“When I saw all of those undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood’s chief abortionist admit they routinely skirt laws against partial-birth abortion to kill unborn babies, dismember them and sell their body parts for profit, it sickened my stomach. I vowed to do everything I could to strip them of every last dime of taxpayer dollars.” a statement accompanying a video message reads.

“I’m writing you today—to ask you to help mobilize the grassroots pressure it’s going to take to force the Senate to strip Planned Parenthood of every last penny of taxpayer dollars.” Paul adds.

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is a London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

Posted in External Sources | Tagged | Leave a comment

Global Gladio: NATO Terror Network Reaches into Asia

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/09/global-gladio-nato-terror-network.html

NATO terror network implicated in Bangkok blasts, appears to have been running Uyghur terrorists through Asia, into Turkey and onward to fight NATO’s proxy war in Syria.

 

September 4, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) – An unprecedented blast in Bangkok, Thailand last month left 20 dead and over 100 injured. The blast was the latest in a string of violence carried out by US-backed proxy Thaksin Shinawatra, who himself was ousted from power in 2006 and finally had his political party removed from power completely in 2014 after massive street demonstrations and a military coup toppled the regime headed by his own sister, Yingluck Shinawatra.

Image: NATO created and funded the Grey Wolves terrorist network during the Cold War as part of its stay behind networks. Instead of fighting non-existent Soviet invaders, they were used instead to kill NATO’s political enemies by the thousands. Today, the Grey Wolves are represented by the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), the third largest in Turkey’s parliament. They are reported to operate globally, including terrorist training camps in Xinjiang, China. 

While the blast represented an escalation in violence, it should be remembered that terrorist networks operating in support of Shinawatra have carried out egregious acts of violence in the past, including fielding up to 300 armed militants in Bangkok’s streets in 2010 leading to weeks of gunbattles between Thai troops and Shinawatra’s armed supporters, leaving almost 100 dead and culminating in city-wide arson.

As for bombings themselves, while generally these networks have used grenades to attack institutions and individuals perceived as enemies of Shinawatra and his foreign sponsored agenda, precisely the same pipe bombs used in the August blast have been implicated in explosions in 2010 and 2014 where bomb makers accidentally killed themselves while assembling devices. In February 2015, a double pipe bombing would be carried out just down the street from where the most recent blast occurred. The devices used were linked to the 2010-2014 incidents.

And while it is clear the bombing was used as a form of violent coercion against a Thai government increasingly drifting away from accommodating both Shinawatra and the foreign interests he represents and closer toward regional partners including China, what was not certain was which networks specifically these interests used to carry out the attack.

Recent evidence has emerged as several suspects have been identified and arrested, suggesting this network includes NATO’s “Grey Wolves” and several other Uyghur groups long backed, funded, and directed by the US as a means of eliminating its enemies across Eurasia and up to and including China. In addition to carrying out attacks in Thailand, they appear to have also been moving militants from across Asia and feeding them into NATO’s proxy war in Syria.


Global Gladio, Target Thailand  In the immediate aftermath of the bombing in Bangkok, the BBC would be the first to float the idea the blasts were in retaliation for Thailand’s deportation of Uyghurs to China – Uyghurs apparently on their way to fight in NATO’s proxy war in Syria – according to Reuters’ report, “Uighurs ‘on way to jihad’ returned to China in hoods.”

Images: The US State Department’s NED refers to China’s Xinjiang region as “East Turkistan,” a fictional realm that does not exist. The US seeks to either destabilize or carve off a vast sum of Chinese territory through supporting terrorism in western China.  

On the very same day when the deportations occurred, Thursday July 9th, protests broke out in Turkey, both in Ankara the capital, and in Istanbul at the Thai consulate. Leading the protests in Ankara was the World Uyghur Congress (WUC), a US-funded, Washington D.C. and Munich based political front that specializes in supporting terrorism under the guise of defending “human rights.”

Image: Thailand’s consulate in Istanbul Turkey was destroyed on the same day Thailand deported Uyghur terror suspects back to China. One may find it difficult to speculate who on Earth currently possesses the operational capacity to organized a same-day retaliation anywhere in the world besides a handful of actors – NATO among them. 
WUC admits that violence broke out among the mobs it was leading in Ankara but denied any affiliations with the protesters in Istanbul who attacked the consulate and destroyed it on the same day, in the same country, over the same alleged grievances. WUC itself suggested it was the work of the “Grey Wolves,” an organization they admit was “clandestinely funded by the US government.”The Grey Wolves are comprised of Turks and Uyghurs, and throughout the Cold War served as part of NATO’s “stay behind networks” referred to as Gladios. They were used to purge NATO’s enemies from Turkey in bloody violence that would leave over 6,000 dead. Since the Cold War, the Grey Wolves have set up operations internationally, including terrorist training camps in Xinjiang, China – all indicating that NATO’s Gladio has gone global.

Image: The US-based and funded World Uyghur Congress admits it led mobs on the same day the Thai consulate was attacked. Their mobs in Ankara also turned violent, however Turkish police were able to maintain control. While WUC claims they have no ties to the Grey Wolves they claim were likely behind the consulate attack, they admit they, like WUC itself, have been funded by the US government. 
During the days following the Bangkok blast, the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FCCT) would give a presentation implicating the Uyghur-linked Turkish “Grey Wolves” terrorist network.The FCCT is a group of foreign journalists from several of the most prominent Western news networks including the BBC, CNN, Reuters, the New York Times, Associated Press, and Agence France-Presse. They have systematically manipulated events in Thailand in efforts to support the regime of Thaksin Shinawatra. The goal of the FCCT’s recent presentation was to help deflect as much blame as possible from Thaksin Shinawatra over the bombings and to suggest Thailand faces “international terrorism.”

Despite the detailed presentation the FCCT provided and the immediate headlines across the Western media attempting to sell the theory to the public, no mention ever was made of the Grey Wolves’ NATO or US funding. Similarly, no mention has been made by the Western media regarding US funding and support behind many, if not all Uyghur opposition groups both in Xinjiang and beyond.

What is clear is that Thailand has inadvertently stumbled upon a highly organized, well-funded, international criminal and terrorist network operating from Xinjiang, China, across Southeast Asia, and as far as Turkey and Syria. This terrorist pipeline appears to have been “tapped” by those seeking to undermine the Thai government, causing its toxic contents to spill over into the ongoing crisis already racking Thailand.

That the Grey Wolves, Uyghur opposition front, and Thaksin Shinawatra are all backed by the US and instruments of US global hegemony, indicates that such instruments often share resources when necessary and are even used interchangeably. NGOs created and maintained in Thailand to support the regime of Shinawatra now cover for Uyghur terrorism, and Uyghur terrorism used against China and Syria is now used to strike hard at Shinawatra’s political foes.

America’s One-Size-Fits All Global Terror Racket 

NGOs the United States funds and directs in Thailand, and primarily used to undermine the current government and defend the remnants of Shinawatra’s political front, were quick to not only condemn the Thai government for deporting terror suspects back to China, but have since then attempted to justify the bombing as Thailand’s deserved return for doing business with China. One Bangkok Post op-ed penned by a former Reuters employee titled, “Should Regime Not Deported Uighurs?” attempted to argue that:

In retrospect, should Thailand not have expelled the Uighurs to China? Or to be more precise, should the ruling junta, which is not fully recognised by the democratic world, have been less responsive to Chinese demands?

National interest always comes first in a country’s diplomacy. But being so accommodating to a superpower’s demands, making Thailand the target of an international outcry and what is looking increasingly like an international terror attack, does not bode well for the country in the long term. 

The ransacking of the Thai consulate in Istanbul failed to alert the Thai security services that the anger was real and long-lasting, and could possibly turn into a calamity 

It should be noted that the author uses the term “international” to describe what is exclusively the US and Europe’s “recognition” and “outcry.”
This op-ed and many like it pervading the Western media are sending a message to the Thai government that failure to comply to the demands of the “international community” will result in terrorism – whether it is a mob destroying your consulates abroad, or bombs exploding in the heart of your nation’s capital. And while this “international community” has many terrorist proxies to use against Thailand, it appears they have selected their “Uyghurs” to stand in the front ranks.

Ousted-exiled dictator Thaksin Shinawatra most likely still possesses the terrorist networks and paramilitary organizations he created and eagerly used during his time in power. However, by using them, he would only further justify the current government’s moves to permanently uproot Shinawatra from Thailand’s political landscape. Just as NGOs assigned by the West to support Thaksin Shinawatra have now become instrumental in justifying and manipulating the recent Bangkok bombing, the West’s terrorist networks used to destabilize nations elsewhere from China to Syria have had terrorism in Thailand apparently outsourced to them.

So far, the investigation suggests this network has been in Thailand for years, long before the deportation of Uyghurs in July. Evidence also suggests a link between the uncovered terror network and previous terror networks uncovered at the height of Shinawatra’s violence in 2010 and 2014. A large amount of forged Turkish passports and ties to Uyghur trafficking networks appear to implicate the terror network in what Syrian and Chinese authorities have attempted to expose for years now – a terror pipeline feeding militants from all over the globe first into Turkey where they are armed, trained, and staged, then into Syria to fight NATO’s proxy war against the government in Damascus.

Do Business With China and Die 

It should be stated that the vast majority of China’s Uyghurs do not support the aspirations of the terrorists and US-funded fronts which claim to represent them. Forty-five percent of Xinjiang’s population – some 10 million people – are Uyghurs. It is likely that if even half of them supported violent separatism, they would have already gained their “independence.”

In reality, Uyhgurs are perhaps the first and foremost victims of US-backed terrorism in Xinjiang and beyond. Those who seek to live in peace and stability with their Chinese compatriots, and who condemn the means and methods of US-backed groups are themselves attacked. The most prominent example of this is that of Imam Jume Tahir, 74 years old, hacked to death in front of China’s largest mosque by terrorists.

The imam had openly condemned US-backed violence and in particular called for street clashes with Chinese police to end.

Image: Uyghurs in China who attempt to lead normal lives often find themselves the primary target of US-backed terrorism. The mosque pictured above, the 600 year old Kah Mosque, saw the murder of its imam, Jume Tahir, by US-backed terrorists for the “crime” of condemning violent protests. 

In the wake of his brutal murder, the Western press would write him off as a “state-appointed leader,” while the US-funded World Uyghur Congress would repeatedly justify the murder throughout the Western media. In the New York Times article, “Chinese Court Sentences Teenagers to Death in Killing of Jume Tahir, Islamic Cleric,” it was reported that:

Dilxat Raxit, a spokesman for the World Uyghur Congress, an exile group based in Germany, condemned the harsh sentences for the defendants in the imam’s murder, saying they would do little to stem the rising tide of Uighur discontent. 

“The Chinese government should examine the roots of the problems, which are caused by coercive policies that Uighurs find unbearable,” he wrote. “It should respect the Uighur religion and traditional way of life, and stop provocations to avoid triggering new turmoil.” 

In another report titled, “The Day Imam Tahir Died,” the World Uyghur Congress again justify the murder:

Dilxat Raxit, spokesman for the exiled political organization World Uyghur Congress, told Reuters that local Uighurs, “suspected that he had a special relationship with China’s Ministry of Public Security” and that he helped the authorities monitor Uighur religious activity. His support for Beijing most likely bred resentment among Kashgar’s Uighurs, many of whom disdain the central government.

No where can it be found in WUC’s many US-funded press releases, congressional assemblies, or publications anything even closely resembling condemnation for the murder of an unarmed elderly man who advocated non-violence. WUC’s message, like that of the Western media in the wake of the Bangkok blast is simple – do business with China and you will die.
America’s Grand Strategy in Asia in One Word – Primacy 

In this it is clear that “Uyghur terrorism” is simply another attempt to conceal what is essentially yet another tool devised to achieve and maintain American global hegemony. Looking at a map of China, it is clear why this otherwise minuscule, obscure ethnic group has been propelled to center stage by American interests.

Image: The US has much to gain by backing separatists in western China. 

The Xinjiang region along with Tibet, if successfully destabilized or carved off from China, would sever Beijing’s long-laid plans to construct a modern-day Silk Road. It would deprive China of both its territory, its resources, and drive tens of millions of its people eastward from their homes in a refugee crisis that would strain the very stability of Chinese society.

And because the US-Uyghur cause is not genuine nor enjoys popular support even in Xinjiang, it is no surprise that those willing to participate can be persuaded to fight overseas in other projects of American hegemony – essentially as mercenaries.

The use of minority groups to divide and destroy a targeted nation is a tactic as old as empire itself. And while the Western media works ceaselessly to explain how various organizations, advocacy groups, and militant fronts all operate in an apparent vacuum, only “coincidentally” propelling US foreign policy forward, it is clear through both a study of history and current US policy papers that global hegemony is still at the very heart of Western ambitions globally and includes all forms of coercion, from propaganda to paramilitary groups.

In one of the  most recent US policy papers on the subject, published this year by the influential Council on Foreign Relations – a corporate-funded think tank that represents the collective interests of some of the most powerful Western corporate-financier interests on Earth – the goal of maintaining “primacy in Asia” is literally spelled out.

Their report, “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” states in no uncertain terms:

Because the American effort to ‘integrate’ China into the liberal international order has now generated new threats to U.S. primacy in Asia—and could result in a consequential challenge to American power globally—Washington needs a new grand strategy toward China that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy.

The report was written by US political administrator and political lobbyist Robert Blackwill who has throughout his career played a role in grooming prospective client regimes in Asia through which the US planned to maintain its regional primacy. Among these client regimes was Thaksin Shinawatra himself. The use of violence and terrorism by Shinawatra to take and maintain control over Thailand is well documented. To think that the US would simply abandon its aspirations to control Thailand, or other nations throughout Southeast Asia vis-a-vis China would be misguided. What would be predictable would be instead an increase in terrorism and political destabilization.

Thailand is now being coerced through a concerted campaign of propaganda and organized violence, seized on by Shinawatra’s supporters who are eagerly exploiting the socioeconomic and political damage the recent bombing has incurred, while so-called “rights” advocates invent creative defenses for otherwise indefensible violence directed at entirely innocent people.

Dismantle the Pipeline

Gladio was successful throughout the Cold War because those among NATO who employed such tactics did so within their borders. “Global Gladio” has networks stretching around the world, vulnerable to police and military operations carried out by host countries.

While the bombing in Bangkok appears to have been aimed at the government for its continued attempts to remove Shinawatra from power and divest from American interests by moving closer to China, the bombing itself stands as the single greatest example of just why Thailand has chosen to change tack in the first place. Accelerated military and counter-terrorism cooperation with China will  now be necessary to ensure the peace and security of both nations. As long as one serves as a base of operations for terrorism aimed at the other, neither will be safe.

For Thailand specifically, it is clear that Shinawatra’s political existence was meant to infiltrate and overwrite Thailand’s current political order. While threats and terrorism are being used to coerce Thailand into accommodating Shinawatra, it should be noted that by doing so, violence, division and destruction are all that await Thailand as a guarantee. The slow, patient dismantling of his political networks, along with a measured pivot toward Beijing appears to be Thailand’s best bet.

For the rest of the world – NATO’s “Gladio” networks are vast and varied. From Ukraine to Syria to Thailand, the most violent and criminal elements in any given society have been organized by the West in a bid to divide, destroy, and dominate the planet. From the original Gladio program in Western Europe, the means of expertly manipulating these criminal gangs has been perfected. Increasing awareness of how Gladio works will not only better arm society to take action against it, but perhaps even dissuade eager criminal elements from joining organizations that are essentially cannon fodder for NATO.

Posted in External Sources | Tagged | Leave a comment

NWNW, Is The ‘Conspiricy Theory’ Insult A Dead Horse?

Interview 1087 – New World Next Week with James Evan Pilato

Welcome to New World Next Week — the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. In this week’s episode:

Story #1: Colleges Brainwash Students Into Believing 9/11 Was Our Fault
http://tinyurl.com/p6fz98w
Video: Children of 9/11 Want to Focus on the Future
http://tinyurl.com/pojhtxv
Fundraising for AE911Truth Billboard in Downtown NYC
http://tinyurl.com/p6l4gkl
Video: Jon Stewart Lobbying to Renew 9/11 Health Programs
http://tinyurl.com/naw64zk

Story #2: Has ‘Conspiracy Theory’ Lost Its Negative Connotations?
http://tinyurl.com/qyu9dq8
‘Some Dare Call It Conspiracy: Labeling Something a Conspiracy Theory Does Not Reduce Belief in It’ by Dr. Michael Wood
http://tinyurl.com/pgzkc6g
Dr Michael Wood’s CV
http://tinyurl.com/pruo6u3
Corbett Report: Episode 050 – The “C” word
http://tinyurl.com/qgfkf6f

Story #3: #GoodNewsNextWeek – Media Monarchy’s 10th Anniversary
http://tinyurl.com/orfxqwl
Media Monarchy’s Bitcoin Address
http://tinyurl.com/qzxf6pn

#NewWorldNextWeek Updates: Scientists to Reanimate 30,000-year-old ‘Giant Virus’ Found in Siberia
http://tinyurl.com/pn9dhz8
China, Russia Building Database of US Intel Info
http://tinyurl.com/oklezhv
Guardian Article Calls City of London a Mafia
http://tinyurl.com/oafes8e
Hate Crimes Against Muslims in London ‘Up By 70%
http://tinyurl.com/puuda8t
Hate Crimes Against London’s Jewish Community Surge by 93%
http://tinyurl.com/oabxvs9
Kerry Called Netanyahu to “Reaffirm Commitment to Israel”
http://tinyurl.com/qyf3rct
Wealthiest Arab States Take No Syrian Refugees, Citing Terror Risk
http://tinyurl.com/q6by8gd
Like Israel & Saudi Arabia, the US Doesn’t Take Refugees, They Make Them
http://tinyurl.com/o3dtwtf
Congress Should Authorize War Against Islamic State
http://tinyurl.com/oumzpwq
Cameron Wants Bombs for Peace By October
http://tinyurl.com/pegrmer
Rethink September 11 global webcast
http://tinyurl.com/obzszgu

Visit http://NewWorldNextWeek.com to get previous episodes in various formats to download, burn and share. And as always, stay up-to-date by subscribing to the #NewWorldNextWeek RSS feed or iTunes feed. Thank you.

Previous Episode: The EU Immigration Crisis Explained
http://tinyurl.com/pr6yvz5

Posted in External Sources | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Social Engineering 101: How to Make a Refugee Crisis

Image: Turkey has spent an inexplicable 6 billion USD on expansive refugee camps. Since Turkey itself has played a key role in arming and supporting terrorists devastating neighboring Syria, altruism is certainly not their motivation. Why did they eagerly take in nearly 2 million refugees and now that they are intentionally expelling them from Turkey, has NATO’s war plans changed again? 

39088Starting in 2007, the US was already in the process of engineering the overthrow and destruction of all prevailing political orders across the Middle East and North African (MENA) region.

It would be in Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh’s 2007 New Yorker article, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” that it was explicitly stated (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Hersh would also reveal that at the time, the US – then under the administration of President George Bush and through intermediaries including US-ally Saudi Arabia – had already begun channeling funding and support to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood who would in 2011 play a crucial role in the opening phases of the destructive war now raging across the Levant.

In 2008, from Libya to Syria and beyond, activists were drawn by the US State Department from across MENA to learn the finer points of Washington and Wall Street’s “color revolution” industry. They were being prepared for an unprecedented, coordinated US-engineered MENA-wide campaign of political destabilization that would in 2011 be called the “Arab Spring.”

Through the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and US State Department’s Movements.org, agitators were literally flown on several occasions to both New York and Washington D.C. as well as other locations around the globe to receive training, equipment and funding before returning to their home countries and attempting to overthrow their respective governments.

In an April 2011 article published by the New York Times titled, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings,” it was admitted:

A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington.

The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):

The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. 

It is clear that the political cover – the Arab Spring – and the premeditated support of terrorist groups including Al Qaeda brought in afterward, were planned years before the Arab Spring actually unfolded in 2011. The goal was admittedly the overthrow of governments obstructing Washington and Wall Street’s hegemonic ambitions and part of a much wider agenda of isolating, encircling, and containing Russia and China.

The destruction of the MENA region was intentional, premeditated, and continues on to this very day.

As the Wave of Regime Change Crashes 

Since 2011, each and every one of the West’s “color revolutions” has predictably devolved into armies of US-backed terrorists attempting to divide and destroy each nation. In Libya, this goal has already long-since been accomplished. In Egypt and Syria, with varying degrees of failure, this agenda has been stalled.

Egypt through sheer virtue of its size and the capabilities of its military, has prevented nationwide warfare. In Syria, facing invasion primarily from both Turkey and Jordan, violence has been far more dramatic and enduring.

But despite initial euphoria across the West that their insidious conspiracy had indeed upended the MENA region entirely, Syria’s ability to resist the West’s proxy forces, and now, more direct intervention, has entirely disrupted this wave of regime change.

US Senator John McCain (Republican – Arizona) who literally posed for pictures with terrorist leaders in both Libya and Syria, including the now head of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) in Libya, Abdul Hakim Belhaj, at the height of the Arab Spring prematurely taunted Moscow and Beijing with threats to bring similarly US-orchestrated chaos in their direction.  Suffice to say, Moscow and Beijing were not only ready for this destabilization, they were prepared to foil it before it so much as reached their borders.

And as momentum stalled, the US and its regional collaborators attempted to justify direct military intervention in Syria first as they did in Libya – by claiming they would be averting a humanitarian disaster and assisting “freedom fighters.”  However with the crimes the US and NATO perpetrated in Libya still fresh in the global public’s minds, this narrative was entirely untenable.

Staged chemical weapon attacks were perpetrated on the outskirts of Damascus, under the nose of UN inspectors in a bid to frame the government of Damascus and again justify direct US military intervention against Syria. Again, the global public, recalling similar fabrications peddled by the West ahead of its ten year invasion and occupation of Iraq along with expert diplomacy by Moscow, averted war.

And while it is increasingly obvious that Al Qaeda and ISIS’ presence in Syria and Iraq is the direct, premeditated result of US-NATO and their regional allies’ sponsorship of both groups, the West has attempted to use them as a pretext for direct military intervention not only in Syria, but again, against the government of Damascus itself.

Cue the Refugees

As this last attempt to justify a final push toward regime change in Syria falters, and as European powers begin deciding whether or not to intervene further in Syria alongside the US, a sudden and convenient deluge of refugees has flooded Europe, almost as if on cue. Scenes like that out of a movie showed hordes of tattered refugees herded along various borders as they apparently appeared out of what the Western media has portrayed as a puff of smoke at Europe’s gates.

In reality, they did not appear out of a puff of smoke. They appeared in Turkey, a NATO member since the 1950’s and one of America’s closest regional allies. Turkey is currently hosting the US military, including special forces and the CIA who have, together with Turkish military and intelligence agencies, been conducting a proxy war on neighboring Syria since 2011.

Turkey has suspiciously maintained a very enthusiastic “open door” policy for refugees, spending inexplicable sums of money and political capital in accommodating them. The Brookings Institution – one of the chief policy think tanks helping engineer the proxy war with Syria – reported in its July 2015 “Order out of Chaos” article, “What Turkey’s open-door policy means for Syrian refugees,” that:

Turkey is now the world’s largest recipient of refugees. Since October 2013, the number of Syrian refugees has increased more than threefold and now numbers almost two million registered refugees.

Brookings also reports that:

The cost has been high to Turkey. Government officials are quick to point out that they have spent over $6 billion on the refugees and complain about the lack of international support.

Brooking details the vast efforts Turkey is undertaking in coordination with Western NGOs to manage the refugees. There is little way that these refugees could suddenly “disappear” and end up in Europe without the Turkish government and more importantly, European governments either knowing about it or being directly involved.

Pawns of War  

Clearly Turkey lacks any altruistic motivation behind its refugee policy. Turkey is one of the chief facilitators of terrorists operating in Syria, and a primary collaborator in NATO’s proxy war against its neighbor. Turkey has allowed literally hundreds of supply trucks a day to cross its borders uninhibited and destined for ISIS territory. Turkey has also been tasked throughout various US policy papers with establishing a “buffer zone” or “safe haven” to move these refugees into, as well as for establishing a Syrian-based stronghold for NATO’s terrorist proxies to launch military operations from. Likely, the refugees were to serve as the initial population of whatever proxy state NATO planned to create with territory it seized and established no-fly-zones over in northern Syria.

Now it appears many of these refugees are instead being rerouted to Europe.
However, not all of the refugees flooding into Europe from Turkey are even from the Syrian conflict. Many are being trafficked first to Turkey from other theaters of NATO operations, including Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as Iraq. It appears that Turkey is serving as a central transit point, not just for terrorists it is feeding into the Syrian conflict, but also for collecting refugees from across MENA and Central Asia, before allowing them to proceed in vast numbers to Europe.

Some reports even indicate that the refugees are receiving direct assistance from the Turkish government itself. The International New York Times’ Greek Kathimerini paper, in an article titled, “Refugee flow linked to Turkish policy shift,” claims (emphasis added):

A sharp increase in the influx of migrants and refugees, mostly from Syria, into Greece is due in part to a shift in Turkey’s geopolitical tactics, according to diplomatic sources. 

These officials link the wave of migrants into the eastern Aegean to political pressures in neighboring Turkey, which is bracing for snap elections in November, and to a recent decision by Ankara to join the US in bombing Islamic State targets in Syria. The analyses of several officials indicate that the influx from neighboring Turkey is taking place as Turkish officials look the other way or actively promote the exodus.

Catastrophes that are meant to look “sudden” and “unexpected” as well as “unstoppable” but are in fact, allowed to unfold within an operational theater completely controlled by the US and NATO constitutes instead a conspiracy – pitting desperate and/or exploited refugees intentionally sent out of Turkey and into Europe, against a manipulated, fearful, and ill-informed Western public.

Also brought into sharp focus, are the string of staged attacks allowed to unfold across Europe – allegedly the work of “ISIS.” In every case without exception, the perpetrators had been well-known to Western intelligence agencies, including the shooters involved in the Paris “Charlie Hebo massacre.” In that incident, all members involved were tracked by French security agencies for nearly 10 years. At least one member was even imprisoned, had traveled afterward to collude with Al Qaeda abroad, and returned to Europe, all while under surveillance. “Coincidentally,” for the 6 months needed to plan and carry out their final act, French security agencies stopped monitoring the group, claiming a lack of resources to do so.

Those familiar with NATO’s Cold War Gladio program can see clearly that the attacks were staged to play into a strategy of tension used to produce fear domestically and build up support for wars abroad.

The recent refugee crisis is being used for precisely this same purpose. In fact, while a false debate is being managed by the Western media and Western political figures to either unconditionally accept the refugees or unconditionally reject them, the only singular narrative both sides are being made to agree on is that instability across MENA is to blame and more bombing is the answer.

Debates over increased, direct military intervention in Syria are now almost entirely predicated not on supporting “freedom fighters,” stopping “WMDs,” or fighting “ISIS,” but instead on how military intervention can help solve the “refugee crisis.”

The main narratives undulating media headlines dismiss both the West’s role in devastating the MENA region, as well as acknowledging the fact that the “refugee crisis” is emanating primarily from within NATO’s borders, not from beyond them. The refugees are pawns, intentionally moved across the game board to illicit a predictable reaction from their hopelessly unskilled opponents – the public. While the social engineers are engaged in a game of three-dimensional chess, the Western public appears to be infantilely eating their checkers.

Considering this unfortunate reality, whatever justifications the West is able to predicate upon the refugee crisis will have to be confronted again by Syria and its allies alone – with the Western public hopelessly defenseless against a conspiracy they have been made accomplices of.

Social Engineering vs. the Inevitable Rot of Empire 

A refugee crisis was inevitable, regardless of the timing and magnitude of any given deluge that may have been created or manipulated by the West. Destroying the planet in pursuit of empire, pillaging nations and hauling away the wealth of the world, inevitably leads to endless streams of victims following their stolen wealth back to the thieves’ den. As an empire expands and the list of its victims expands with it, the number of those an empire is able to fully assimilate versus those who will inevitable overwhelm it eventually tips the balance against the empire’s favor.

Such was the fate of the Roman Empire, which over the course of its decline, had its institutions overwhelmed by peoples it had conquered faster than it could assimilate them.

For the West, it has chosen confrontation rather than cooperation. It has closed economic ties with Russia, alienated China, and wages ceaseless war across the MENA region and Central Asia. It pursues a now exposed campaign of divide and conquer across Southeast Asia augmented with terrorism and political subversion all while neglecting every virtue that ever made it a respected global power to begin with.

How much of the most recent refugee crisis is social engineering versus simply the inevitable rot of empire is difficult to tell – though the fact that social engineers would be tempted to use a vast number of refugees created by their own foreign policy indicates that their ploy in and of itself is indicative of immense, irreversible geopolitical rot.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/09/13/social-engineering-101-how-to-make-a-refugee-crisis/

Posted in External Sources | Tagged | Leave a comment

How the Banksters Play “Good Cop, Bad Cop”

committee-to-save-the-worldby James Corbett
theinternationalforecaster.com
September 15, 2015

As all eyes turn to this week’s Federal Open Market Committee meeting for an answer to the will they / won’t they Fed rate hike question, we face another stark reminder of how the global economy is increasingly at the whim of the central bankers with their hands on the money spigot. The would-be “Masters of the (Phoney, Manipulated) Universe” known as the Federal Reserve board have the power to send the global economy into a tailspin by hiking rates, causing a giant unwind of the almost-never-mentioned dollar carry trade in emerging economies. Or they can waffle again, delay the decision, and keep markets in the precarious limbo they’ve been since the end of the QE3 party and the removal of the punch bowl. They could even, as some suggest, concede their utter failure to even understand let alone implement an easing-based “recovery” and try again with QE4.

But wait, there’s a bold new truth-teller on the horizon. One that’s willing to talk about the insanity of this central bank-manipulated economy: “Financial markets have worryingly come to depend on central banks’ every word and deed,” says the oracle. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s Claudio Borio, chief economist of the Bank for International Settlements!

And the plainspoken, obvious truths about the global economy’s precarious position don’t stop there. We live, Borio noted in a press conference late last week, in “a world in which debt levels are too high, productivity growth too weak and financial risks too threatening.” The market mayhem of August (“remarkable” gyrations of oil price, “sharp price moves with little trading” in FX markets, “dislocations” of equities markets) “were not “isolated tremors, but the release of pressure that has gradually accumulated over the years along major fault lines.”

You would be forgiven for thinking that such a screed came from some alternative market commentator, someone far outside the mainstream and likely to be branded as a fearmongering conspiraloon by the economic cheerleaders at CNBC. But the fact that it came from the Bank for International Settlements should actually not be surprising. As Ambrose Evans-Pritchard noted in his article on the BIS’ latest report: “The venerable BIS – the so-called ‘bank of central bankers’ – was the only global body to warn repeatedly and loudly before the Lehman crisis that the system was becoming dangerously unstable.”

BISThe crash course for those who don’t know about the BIS: It was founded in 1930 as an outgrowth of Rockefeller Trustee Owen D. Young’s so-called “Young Plan” to chain German payments for the unpayable WWI reperations scam to a consortium of financiers led by J.P. Morgan. It is located in Basel, Switzerland but is above Swiss law by terms of a treaty that makes the bank “inviolable” and free from search, seizure or interference in any way by Swiss authorities. And it was identified as the apex of a global system of oligarchical control in a shockingly frank passage by Georgetown historian (and Clinton mentor) Carrol Quigley in “Tragedy and Hope”:

“The Power of financial capitalism had a far reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks, which were themselves private corporations.”

It may at first be confusing as to why the BIS is now seemingly spreading the word about the coming collapse that those in the mainstream have been pooh-poohing for so long. But in fact, this should not be confusing at all. The BIS is playing the “good cop” in this global charade, the champion of economic wisdom and monetary caution in a land of central bankers who are out of control. The BIS is currently building up its credibility, acting as the sage voice of wisdom that you only find out afterward you should have been listening to all along. And why? So they can spend that credibility in the crisis. It is only by being the “only global body to warn repeatedly and loudly” of the coming collapse that they can expect people to listen to them about the “solutions” for this crisis.

The phoney nature of this charade is not difficult to see. The BIS is comprised of the heads of the central banks of most of the nations of the world. It IS, in a key sense, those central bankers. They actually wrote the paper exposing the dollar carry trade that they are now warning may unwind catastrophically when monetary policy stops working and the real credit crunch begins. Do you think the Fed really “doesn’t understand” what quantitative easing has done or how it works, as Bill Dudley would have you believe, or do they understand perfectly well because the plan is in fact to pop the bubble and create the chaos that is necessary for their economic “New World Order”?

Order_ChaosNote how when the Cyprus crisis unfolded before our eyes and we witnessed the birth of the banking bail-in it was revealed that the BIS had been there in the background all along, quietly creating the regulatory framework for just such an event through their even more shadowy “Financial Stability Board” spinoff.

The BIS knows what’s coming as a result of these central banking manipulations. They know what results when you combine the biggest bond bubble in history with an eight-year bull run in stocks that defies all economic reality. It isn’t pretty. It isn’t meant to be. Order from chaos never is.

But rest assured, the BIS will be there in the midst of the crisis, the ones who saw it all coming and tried to warn you about it, but you just didn’t listen. The good cop who is going to be there for you and restore order to global markets. The ones who provide the petrified masses the New World Order they’re clamoring for. Just as those who profit from false flag events always do.

And when they do, don’t you believe them for one second. There’s no good cops or bad cops, only banksters, and they are all in on it. And the way out of this mess isn’t going to come from them.

Posted in External Sources | Tagged | Leave a comment

Permaculture: The Design Arm of a Paradigm Shift

http://tobyhemenway.com/908-permaculture-the-design-arm-of-a-paradigm-shift/

Here’s how it happened to me: Back in 1990 I was playing hooky from my unsatisfying biotech job in Seattle by browsing the homesteading shelves in the public library. I pulled down a thick black book I hadn’t seen before called Permaculture: A Designers’ Manual. As I perused the pages, suddenly my previously fragmented life made sense. I had been fascinated for years with ecology, appropriate technology, economics, gardening, evolution, construction, energy systems, social justice, and a raft of other seemingly disconnected fields. But I didn’t want to specialize in any one of them, and I had been watching with some envy as my friends dropped into successful careers in various niches. Now, finally I knew what was going on. What a relief to find that a whole-systems approach could tie together the many disparate pieces of my life. This is, I know, a familiar and exalting experience for many when they first encounter permaculture.

Another familiar and not-so exalting experience for most of us is trying to explain permaculture to our friends and families, and receiving blank, confused, or condescending looks in response. I’ve explored this problem in the past, as have others. I’ve continued that journey, and want to share some of my latest thoughts on how we can explain permaculture to others and where it fits into a larger picture.

Just as permaculture helps umbrella many seemingly unrelated disciplines and places them into a larger context, we can understand permaculture better by seeing where it lies, in turn, in its own larger context. Much of the difficulty and confusion around permaculture stems from its protean nature: It can be many things to many people. It’s been called a philosophy, a movement, a design approach, a set of techniques, a practice, a worldview, a land use ethic, a science, a pseudoscience, and even a religion.

I’m finding that the most fruitful way for me to think about permaculture is that it is the design arm of a paradigm shift. To be more specific, it’s the design approach for achieving the goals of the sustainability movement. And I mean sustainability in the largest sense, not just environmental sustainability but social and ethical as well.

Permaculture is what we use to put into action our growing understanding that humans must fit into the web-work of the rest of life or we’ll make this planet uninhabitable for us and for countless other species. It gives us tools for social justice and for working together. To use a Buddhist analogy, it tells us how to do the “chop wood and carry water” work that remains after enlightenment; in this case, the enlightenment of gaining a whole-systems perspective. After your world changes, there’s plenty of work to be done. That work is permaculture.

Much of the knowledge that made permaculture possible has been around much longer than permaculture. Seeing that larger context helps us see which problems permaculture is trying to solve—for it is, indeed, a problem-solving toolkit. That context includes the ancient indigenous wisdom that inspired much of Bill Mollison’s vision. It also includes the ecological science that emerged in the late nineteenth century. Important, too, are the whole-systems sciences that first appeared in the 1940s, laid out by people like Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Norbert Wiener, Kenneth Boulding, and Donella Meadows. And there is the outrage and grief over the despoliation of the planet that spawned the environmental and sustainability movements, which found voice in the 1950s with Rachel Carson and many others. These are some of permaculture’s teachers and mentors, and they were each building a worldview much more coherent than the dominant paradigm of reductionist science could ever offer. The entire framework that their work was based in had to arise before permaculture could exist. To give that large framework a single name, I think of it as whole-systems thinking.

This larger context of whole systems into which permaculture fits and plays a role is why I am reluctant to use such grand terms for permaculture as philosophy or movement. Permaculture is a part—and an essential part—of those larger sciences, philosophies, and social movements, but it’s not the whole story. It doesn’t encompass them, it derives from them. And, most importantly, permaculture gives us the tools we need to bring this new understanding of whole systems into the world in physical form and action. Once we have learned to think this new way, permaculture tells us what to do to make it real.

Permaculture, then, is a systematized program for enacting the worldview of the social justice and sustainability movements and for bringing the wisdom of indigenous knowledge into contemporary life. It is whole-systems thinking in action. It’s what we need to do to be living in alignment with the new paradigm, so nicely phrased by Rafter Sass Ferguson, of meeting human needs while retaining and enhancing ecosystem health.

The genius of permaculture is that it is both a tool for enacting the new paradigm of whole-systems thinking and a way to learn how to make that paradigm shift. To use permaculture effectively, we need to have made the transition to the holistic worldview. Until we have done that, permaculture can look like a set of gardening techniques, or at most a set of practices guided by a list of dogmatic principles and three ethics. We can’t get good at it until we have moved beyond the reductionist view that most of us were brought up in. But the beauty is, simply practicing permaculture teaches us to think in whole systems. Sheet mulching, just to take one possible path, helps us see the soil food web, which shows us what creates the conditions for healthy food, which can point us toward food justice, and then this helps us see how human and planetary ecology are interdependent. Permaculture is a tool for working our way toward these larger understandings. And if you’ve already made the paradigm shift, permaculture tells you how to manifest it in the world and in your life. These mutually reinforcing aspects of permaculture are part of its power. That, not incidentally, is how whole systems work: Their interconnections are their strength.

Knowing that permaculture is embedded in a larger movement toward sustainability and in a whole-systems paradigm also constrains us from doing stupid things with it. We won’t use permaculture to try to sustain the unsustainable. Putting a green roof on a pesticide factory can’t be permaculture design. Reducing waste or energy use at a toxics manufacturer isn’t a viable design project because we know that we must take all the system yields into account. A planet-killing process can’t be reformed; it must be eliminated at a higher design level.

This also shows why a set of ethics is naturally embedded in permaculture. When we are thinking in whole systems, we inherently are aware of the consequences of our actions, and we know that there is no such thing as an externality. There is no “away.” In a whole-systems view, pollution and human suffering aren’t incidental by-products of manufacturing so-called wealth but are seen as central yields that highlight bad design. In permaculture, care for the earth and care for people become inherently integrated into the design process. Indeed, those are the ultimate products of our designs; the other yields—money, consumer goods, even food—are the by-products.

The understanding that permaculture is what the sustainability movement uses to manifest its vision helps clear up the thicket that has grown up around describing permaculture. I don’t see permaculture as a philosophy or even a movement in itself, but rather is part of a much larger movement: the great paradigm shift that our species must undergo to be able to remain on this planet. That movement and paradigm are far greater than permaculture. Permaculture, however, plays a central role within that greater movement and that whole-systems philosophy, because it is, so far, the best approach for putting those global visions into practice.

Without the design approach and strategy-building tools of permaculture, the environmental movement could remain mired in protest, negativity, a battlefield mentality, and the compromising and destructive alliances increasingly being made with corporate polluters by The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and other institutionalized environment groups. Permaculture can help them move forward, because it provides the solution set for the problems identified by the environmental and sustainability movements, and does it in ways that allow those communities to break out of the old-paradigm, beholden-to-big-money traps that large non-profits and NGOs are stuck in. In its social structure and design methods, permaculture reflects the local-scale but widespread, distributed-network approach to solution-finding that is one of the hallmarks of whole-systems design. It allows those who use it to escape the fundraising treadmill, the scarcity mentality, and the us-versus-them mindset.

We learn in permaculture that a key question to ask of any design element is, “What is its function; what does it do within its context?” So let’s ask that question of permaculture itself: What function does permaculture perform in the world? And I would answer that it gives us concrete methods to bring our new understanding of whole systems into reality so that we can live regeneratively. It is the set of tools that the social justice and sustainability movements can use to plan and manifest their vision of a better world. Permaculture is the design arm of the paradigm shift.

Toby Hemenway

April 16, 2015

Posted in External Sources, Solutions | Tagged | 1 Comment

9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money

By, James Corbett           http://www.corbettreport.com

Forget for one moment everything you’ve been told about September 11, 2001. 9/11 was a crime. And as with any crime, there is one overriding imperative that detectives must follow to identify the perpetrators: follow the money. This is an investigation of the 9/11 money trail.

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES

Forget for one moment everything you’ve been told about September 11, 2001. Instead let’s ask ourselves one question: What was 9/11? A terrorist atrocity? An attack on America? The first salvo in a new war? “A day that changed everything”?

The question may seem simple, but how we answer it is of vital importance. It determines how we proceed with our investigation of that day. And once you strip away the emotional rhetoric and the fear-inducing imagery, we’re left with a simple truth: 9/11 was a crime. And as with any crime, there is one overriding imperative that detectives must follow to identify the perpetrators: follow the money.

This is an investigation of the 9/11 money trail.

The 9/11 Heist

In 1998, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey agreed to privatize the World Trade Center, the complex of office towers in Lower Manhattan that they had owned and operated since their construction in 1973. In April 2001 an agreement was reached with a consortium of investors led by Silverstein Properties and on July 24th, 2001 Larry Silverstein, who already owned World Trade Center Building 7, signed a 99 year lease for the Twin Towers and Buildings 4 and 5.

The lease was for $3.2 billion, and was financed by a bridge loan from GMAC, the commercial mortgage arm of General Motors, as well as $111 million from Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre, individual real estate investors. Silverstein Properties only put down $14 million of its own money.

The deal was unusual in a variety of ways. Although the Port Authority carried only $1.5 billion of insurance coverage on the WTC complex, which earlier that year had been valued at $1.2 billion, Silverstein had insisted on doubling that amount, insuring the buildings for $3.55 billion. Silverstein’s insurance broker struggled to put that much coverage in place and ultimately had to split it among 25 dealers. The negotiations were so involved that only temporary contracts were in place for the insurance at the time the lease was signed and by September the contracts were still being finalized.

Silverstein’s group was also explicitly given the right to rebuild the structures if they were destroyed, and even to expand the amount of retail space on the site if rebuilding did take place.

Within hours of the destruction of the Twin Towers on September 11th, Silverstein was on the phone to his lawyers, trying to determine if his insurance policies could “construe the attacks as two separate, insurable incidents rather than one.” Silverstein spent years in the courts attempting to win $7.1 billion from his $3.55 billion insurance policy and in 2007 walked away with $4.55 billion, the largest single insurance settlement ever. As soon as the deal was announced Silverstein sued United and American Airlines for a further $3.5 billion for their “negligence” in the 9/11 attacks, a claim that was struck down by the courts but is still on appeal.

Perhaps even more outrageously, in a secret deal in 2003, the Port Authority agreed to pay back 80% of their initial equity in the lease, but allowed the Silverstein group to maintain control of the site. The deal gave Silverstein, Goldman and Cayre $98 million of the $125 million they put down on the lease, and a further $130 million in insurance proceeds that were earmarked for the site’s rebuilding.

In the end, Silverstein profited from the 9/11 attacks to the tune of $4.55 billion and counting.

But that’s the 9/11 insurance heist you saw. There was a much deeper, more complex, and well-hidden heist that was taking place behind closed doors on September 11, 2001, deep in the heart of the World Trade Center itself.

Marsh & McLennan is a diversified risk, insurance and professional services firm with over $13 billion in annual revenue and 57,000 employees. In September of 2001, 2000 of those employees worked in Marsh’s offices in the World Trade Center. Marsh occupied floors 93 to 100 of the North Tower, the exact area of the impact and explosion.

In the year prior to 9/11, Marsh had contracted with SilverStream software to create an electronic connection between Marsh and its clients for the purpose of creating “paperless transactions.” SilverStream had already built internet-based transactional and trading platforms for Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank, Banker’s Trust, Alex Brown, Morgan Stanley and other financial services firms that were later involved in 9/11, but this new project was unlike anything that had been attempted before.

Richard Andrew Grove, the salesperson who handled the Marsh & McLennan project for SilverStream, explains.

RICHARD GROVE: In 2000 SilverStream was contracted by Marsh to provide a technological solution beyond what we had done for any of the above-named companies; insofar as it would be used to electronically connect Marsh to its major business partners via internet portals, for the purpose of creating “paperless transactions” and expediting revenue and renewal cycles, and built from the ground up at the client’s site.

SilverStream provided a specific type of connectivity that was used to link AIG and Marsh & McLennan–the first two commercial companies on the planet to employ this type of transaction–and in fact Marsh was presented with something called the ACORD Award in the summer of 2001 for being the first commercial corporation to do so… and what you should take away from that is this: it means that no other companies were doing this type of transaction,so the question in your mind should be- what then were Marsh and AIG doing, and why did they need to leverage technologies that no other commercial entity on the face of the earth needed to conduct business?

Once securing the contract, SilverStream then stationed approximately 30-40 developers at Marsh, andthis team was led by 2-3 managers, with whom I liaised to ensure delivery of the “solution” that was promised.The development team regularly worked late into the night if not all night, and sometimes worked 7 days a week in order to adhere to Marsh’s indicated pre-September 11th deadline.

(SOURCE: Project Constellation)

But it was not long before severe irregularities in the billing of the account for this project led Richard Grove into the heart of a deeper mystery about the software, and about the work he was engaged in.

RICHARD GROVE: I first noticed fiscal anomalies with respect to the Marsh.com project, when I was in a meeting on the98th floor in October of 2000 with a gentleman named Gary Lasko. Gary was Marsh’s North American Chief Information Officer, and that particular afternoon a colleague and I helped him identify about $10,000,000 in suspicious purchase orders-after I recognized that certain vendors were deceiving Marsh, and specifically appeared to be selling Marsh large quantities of hardware that were not necessary-as this was later confirmed by Gary.

I brought my concerns up to executives inside of SilverStream, and I was urged to keep quiet and mind my own business. I went to an executive at Marsh, and he advised me to do likewise… but THEN I mentioned it to a few executives at Marsh who I could trust–like Gary Lasko…and Kathryn Lee, Ken Rice, Richard Breuhardt, John Ueltzhoeffer–people who became likewise concerned that something untoward
was going on.

The concerned colleagues I just mentioned, were murdered on September 11th, and the executives who expressed dismay at my concerns, are alive and free today because of it.

I feel that it’s no coincidence, as the Marsh Executive who urged me to drop my line of inquiry made sure that his personnel, who I just mentioned, were in the office bright and early for a global conference call before the staff meeting upon which I was to intrude… a conference call which I was informed this executive in question conducted but attended from the safety of his Upper West Side apartment.

(SOURCE: Project Constellation)

The global conference call with Marsh’s IT staff on the morning of 9/11, a meeting that included the staff who were investigating the suspicious billing on the SilverStream deal, was confirmed in a 2006 interview with Marsh’s then-Chief Information Officer, Ellen Clarke.

Richard Grove had been asked to attend the meeting but was stuck in traffic on the way to the Towers when the attack began. His friends at Marsh were not so lucky. 294 Marsh employees, including all of the participants in the conference call in the North Tower, died that morning. Meanwhile the Marsh executive who had scheduled the meeting, the same one who had asked Grove to drop the issue of the billing anomalies, was safe in his apartment, attending the meeting via telephone.

So what was the Marsh.com project really about? Why was it so important for it to be finished before September 11th, and what kind of transactions did it enable? More importantly, what information was lost when the data center on the 95th floor of the North Tower suffered a direct hit on 9/11 and the buildings were demolished?

A partial answer comes from reports that emerged in late 2001 that a German firm, Convar, had been hired to reconstruct financial data from the hard disks recovered at Ground Zero. The firm talks about this work in its promotional videos.

September the 11th, 2001. The whole world is in shock following the attacks on the World Trade Center. Convar has some solutions to offer.

Data stored on countless hard drives retrieved from the collapsed towers was believed to have been lost, but Convar’s specialists can render irreplaceable information readable again at Europe’s only high-security data recovery center. Burnt, crushed or dirty storage media are ready to relinquish their secrets by the time we finish.

(Source: CONVAR – Repair & Service Center)

More details on the work come from an IDG News Service story posted to CNN.com in December 2001. Under the headline “Computer disk drives from WTC could yield clues,” the article notes: “An unexplained surge in transactions was recorded prior to the attacks, leading to speculation that someone might have profited from previous knowledge of the terrorist plot by moving sums of money. But because the facilities of many financial companies processing the transactions were housed in New York’s World Trade Center, destroyed in the blasts, it has until now been impossible to verify that suspicion.”

A Reuters article from the same time, later posted to Convar’s website, offers revealing glimpses into the investigation’s early results. It quotes Peter Herschel, Convar’s director at the time.

“The suspicion is that inside information about the attack was used to send financial transaction commands and authorizations in the belief that amid all the chaos the criminals would have, at the very least, a good head start. Of course it is also possible that there were perfectly legitimate reasons for the unusual rise in business volume. It could turn out that Americans went on an absolute shopping binge on that Tuesday morning. But at this point there are many transactions that cannot be accounted for. Not only the volume but the size of the transactions was far higher than usual for a day like that. There is a suspicion that these were possibly planned to take advantage of the chaos.”

It also quotes Richard Wagner, one of the companies data retrieval experts. “There is a suspicion that some people had advance knowledge of the approximate time of the plane crashes in order to move out amounts exceeding $100 million. They thought that the records of their transactions could not be traced after the main frames were destroyed.”

Was the revolutionary electronic trading link between AIG and Marsh being used to funnel money through the World Trade Center at the time of the attack? Were the attack perpetrators hoping that the destruction of Marsh’s data center, on the 95th floor at the dead center of the North Tower explosion, would conceal their economic crime?

One piece of corroborating evidence for this idea comes from author and researcher Michael Ruppert, who reported in 2004 that immediately before the attacks began, computer systems in Deutsche Bank, one of SilverStream’s other e-link clients, had been taken over from an external location that no one in the office could identify.

MICHAEL RUPPERT: Within, I would guess — I’d have to go back and look at the book, but it was no more than a week of the attacks — I was being contacted by a lot of people, from inside official sources who were raising a lot of questions. This one particular person was extremely credible. They absolutely convinced me they had been an employee of Deutsche Bank in the Twin Towers, and they told me very clearly that in the moments right before the attacks and during the attack — there was a 40 minute window between the time the first plane struck the World Trade Center and the second plane — that Deutsche Bank’s computers in New York City had been “taken over.” Absolutely co-opted and run. There was a massive data purge, a massive data download, and all kinds of stuff was moving.

And what this person said very clearly was that no one in the Deutsche Bank offices in the towers at the time had the ability to prevent what was going on from any of their terminals.

(Source: Terror Trading 9/11)

Sadly, no answer to the questions raised by these accounts is forthcoming from Convar. After the initial reporting on the investigation, which noted that the company was working with the FBI to recover and analyze the data, Convar now refuses to talk about the information they discovered.

DUTCH REPORTER: Is it true that large amounts of money were transferred illegally out of the World Trade Center on the morning of 9/11, just before the attacks?

If you would look on the website, I would say “Yes.”

DUTCH REPORTER: Uh huh.

CONVAR SPOKESMAN: Because that was the information from a previous release.

DUTCH REPORTER: Uh huh.

CONVAR SPOKESMAN: If you were to ask me today I would need to tell you I could not give you any additional information about that. I’m really sorry about–

DUTCH REPORTER: What if I were to ask you one year ago? What would you have–

CONVAR SPOKESMAN: I would have said that what we have there is what we said before. Yes, exactly.

Source: Dutch tv show Zembla investigates 911 theories)

At the time of 9/11, Marsh’s chief of risk management was Paul Bremer, the former managing director of Kissinger and Associates who went on to oversee the US occupation of Iraq. On the morning of 9/11 he was not in his office at Marsh & MacLennan, but at NBC’s TV studio, where he was delivering the official story of the attack.

NBC4 ANCHOR: Can you talk to us a little bit about…about…who could…I mean, there are a limited number of groups who could be responsible for something of this magnitude, correct?

PAUL BREMER: Yes, this is a very well-planned, very well-coordinated attack, which suggests it is very well-organized centrally, and there are only three or four candidates in the world really who could have conducted this attack.

NBC4 ANCHOR: Bin Laden comes to mind right away, Mr. Bremer.

PAUL BREMER: Indeed, he certainly does. Bin Laden was involved in the first attack on the World Trade Center which had as its intention doing exactly what happened here, which was to collapse both towers. He certainly has to be a prime suspect. But there are others in the Middle East, and there are at least two states, Iran and Iraq, which should at least remain on the list of potential suspects.

NBC4 ANCHOR: I don’t recall anything like this. Pearl Harbor happened a month before I was born and I hear my parents talk about that as a seminal event in their lives all the time. I’m not aware of anything like this in the United States before. Americans are now — I think it’s fair to say — really scared. Should we be?

NBC4 ANCHOR: This is a day that will change our lives, isn’t it?

PAUL BREMER: It is a day that will change our lives, and it’s a day when the war that the terrorists declared on the United States — and after all, they did declare a war on us — has been brought home to the United States in a much more dramatic way than we’ve seen before, so it will change our lives.

(Source: Paul Bremer interview, NBC)

9/11 Insider Trading

On September 12, 2001, before the dust had even settled on Ground Zero, the Securities and Exchange Commission opened an investigation into a chilling proposition: that an unknown group of traders with advance knowledge of the 9/11 plot had made millions betting against the companies involved in the attacks.

ANTONIO MORA: “What many Wall Street analysts believe is that the terrorists made bets that a number of stocks would see their prices fall. They did so by buying what they call ‘puts.’ If you bet right the rewards can be huge. The risks are also huge unless you know something bad is going to happen to the company you’re betting against.

DYLAN RATIGAN: This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you’ve ever seen in your entire life.

ANTONIO MORA: One example, United Airlines. The Thursday before the attack more than two thousand contracts betting that the stock would go down were purchased. Ninety times more in one day than in three weeks. When the markets reopened, United’s stock dropped, the price of the contracts soared and someone may have made a lot of money, fast.

DYLAN RATIGAN: $180,000 turns into $2.4 million when that plane hits the World Trade Center.

ANTONIO MORA: It’s almost the same story with American Airlines.

DYLAN RATIGAN: That’s a five-fold increase in the value of what was a $337,000 trade on Monday (September 10, 2001).

ANTONIO MORA: All of a sudden becomes what?

DYLAN RATIGAN: $1.8 million.

ANTONIO MORA: And there’s much more, including an extraordinarily high number of bets against Morgan Stanley and Marsh & McLennan, two of the World Trade Center’s biggest tenants. Could this be a coincidence?

DYLAN RATIGAN: This would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence.”

(Source: 9/11 Wall Street Blames Put Option Inside Trading On Terrorists | Time reference: TBA)

Although the put options on American and United Airlines are usually cited in reference to the 9/11 insider trading, these trades only represent a fraction of the suspicious trades leading up to the attack. Between August 20th and September 10th, abnormally large spikes in put option activity appeared in trades involving dozens of different companies whose stocks plunged after the attack including Boeing, Merrill Lynch, J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Munich Re and the AXA Group.

Traders weren’t just betting against the companies whose stocks dove after 9/11, however. There was also a six-fold increase in call options on the stock of defence contractor Raytheon on the day before 9/11. The options allowed the traders to buy Raytheon stock at $25. Within a week of the attack, as the American military began deploying the Raytheon-supplied Tomohawk missiles they would eventually use in the invasion of Afghanistan, the company’s share price had shot up 37% to over $34.

The SEC weren’t the only ones interested in this particular 9/11 money trail, either. Investigations into potential insider trading before the attacks were opened by authorities around the globe, from Belgium to France to Germany to Switzerland to Japan. It wasn’t long before this global financial manhunt started yielding clues on the trail of the terror traders.

On September 17th Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Martino, addressing Italian Consob’s own investigation into potential 9/11 trading, said: “I think that there are terrorist states and organizations behind speculation on the international markets.”

By September 24th the Belgian Finance Minister, Didier Reynders, was confident enough to publicly announce Belgium’s “strong suspicions that British markets may have been used for transactions.”

The president of Germany’s central bank, Ernst Welteke, was the most adamant: “What we found makes us sure that people connected to the terrorists must have been trying to profit from this tragedy.”

These foreign leaders were not alone in their conviction that insider trading had taken place. University of Chicago finance professor George Constantinides, Columbia University law professor John Coffee, Duke University law professor James Cox and other academics as well as well-known options traders like Jon Najarian all expressed their belief that investors had traded on advance knowledge of the attacks.

The scale of the SEC investigation was unprecedented, examining over 9.5 million securities transactions, including stocks and options in 103 different companies trading in 7 markets, 32 exchange traded funds, and stock indices. The probe drew on the assistance of the legal and compliance staff of the 20 largest trading firms and the regulatory authorities in ten foreign governments. The Commission coordinated its investigation with the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the Department of the Treasury.

The result of this investigation?

“We have not developed any evidence suggesting that those who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks traded on the basis of that information.”

Although this sounds like the investigation did not find evidence of insider trading, a second look reveals the trick; they are not saying that there was no insider trading, only that there is no evidence that “those who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks” participated in such trading. But this begs the question: who had that advance knowledge, and how did the SEC determine this?

The 9/11 Commission Report begs the question even more blatantly in their treatment of the anomalous put option activity on United Airlines stock on September 6: 95% of the puts were placed by “a single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda.” Again, it is taken as a foregone conclusion that a lack of ties to “al Qaeda” means there could not have been advance knowledge of the attack, even if the evidence shows  insider trading took place.

To be sure, insider trading almost certainly did take place in the weeks before 9/11. Although some have used the commission report to conclude that the story was debunked, the intervening years have seen the release of not one, not two, but three separate scientific papers concluding with high probability that the anomalous trading was the result of advance knowledge.

In “Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001” University of Chicago professor Allen Poteshman concluded: “Examination of the option trading leading up to September 11 reveals that there was an unusually high level of put buying. This finding is consistent with informed investors having traded options in advance of the attacks.”

In “Detecting Abnormal Trading Activities in Option Markets” researchers at the University of Zurich used econometric methods to confirm unusual put option activity on the stocks of key airlines, banks and re-insurers in the weeks prior to 9/11.

And in “Was There Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?” a team of researchers concluded that abnormal activity in the S&P index options market around the time of the attack “is consistent with insiders anticipating the 9-11 attacks.”

The only question, then, is who was profiting from these trades and why was no one ever indicted for their participation in them?

One lead is pursued by researcher and author Kevin Ryan. In “Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11” he examines an FBI briefing document from 2003 that was declassified in 2009. It describes the results of FBI investigations into two of the pre-9/11 trades that the Bureau had identified as suspicious, including the purchase of 56,000 shares of Stratesec in the days prior to 9/11. Stratesec provided security systems to airports (including, ironically, Dulles Airport, as well as the World Trade Center and United Airlines), and saw its share price almost double when the markets re-opened on September 17th, 2001.

The trades traced back to a couple whose names are redacted from the memo, but are easily identifiable from the unredacted information: Mr. and Mrs. Wirt D. Walker III, a distant relative of the Bush family and business partner of Marvin Bush, the president’s brother. The document notes that the pair were never even interviewed as part of the investigation because it had “revealed no ties to terrorism or other negative information.”

In addition to begging the question, this characterization is provably false. As Ryan noted in a conversation with financial journalist Lars Schall:

KEVIN RYAN: “Wirt Dexter Walker at Stratesec hired several people from a company called The Carlyle Group and The Carlyle Group had Bin-Laden family members as investors. Also Wirt Walkers fellow (inaudible) director James Abrahamson was a close business associate of a man named Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani businessman and Mansoor Ijaz claimed to be able to contact Osama Bin-Laden on mulitple occasions.

So there does seem to be some circumstantial evidence indicated that these people were connected to Al-Qaeda, at least to the point where we should investigate.

LARS SCHALL: And isn’t it also true that some members of the Bin-Laden family were actually in Washington at the gathering of The Carlyle Group on 9/11?

KEVIN RYAN: That’s true. The Carlyle Group had a meeting at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Washington on September 11th and present there were former President George H. W. Bush, James Baker and the brother of Osama Bin-Laden. I believe his name was Salem, I can’t recall his exact name. But they were there, investors from the Bin-Laden family meeting with Carlyle Group representatives in Washington on September 11th.”

(Source: Terror Trading 9/11)

Was this why the FBI thought better of questioning him over his highly profitable purchase of Stratesec shares right before 9/11?

The CIA figures prominently in another line of investigation. One suspicious United Airlines put option purchase that was investigated by the FBI involved a 2,500 contract order for puts in the days before 9/11. Instead of processing the purchase through United Airlines’ home exchange, the Chicago Board of Options Exchange, the order was split into five 500 contract chunks and run through five different options exhchanges simultaneously. The unusual order was brokered by Deutsch Bank Alex. Brown, a firm that until 1998 was chaired by A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard, a former consultant to CIA director James Woolsey who at the time of 9/11 was himself the Executive Director of the CIA.

MICHAEL C. RUPPERT: “So right after the attacks of 9/11 the name Buzzy Krongard surfaced, it was instant research that revealed that Buzzy Krongard had been allegedly recruited by CIA Director George Tennant to be become the Executive Director at (the) CIA, which is the number 3 position, right before the attacks.

And Alex Brown was one of the many subsidiaries of Deutsche Bank (which was) one of the primary vehicles or instruments that handled all of these criminal trades by people who obviously knew that the attacks were going to take place where, how and involving specific airlines.”

(Source: Terror Trading 9/11)

Perhaps the most frank admission of insider trading is notable for three things: it was recorded on video, it has never been investigated by any agency or law enforcement official, and it was made by former CIA agent and frequent foreign policy commentator Robert Baer, the real-life inspiration for the character portrayed by George Clooney in “Syriana.” Talking to citizen journalists after a speaking event in Los Angeles in 2008, Baer was recorded on video making a startling assertion about 9/11 insider trading:

JEREMY ROTHE-KUSHEL: “…the last thing I want to leave you with is the National Reconnaissance Office was running a drill of a plane crashing into their building and you know they’re staffed by DoD and CIA…”

ROBERT BAER: “I know the guy that went into his broker in San Diego and said ‘cash me out, it’s going down tomorrow.’

JEREMY ROTHE KUSHEL: Really?

ROBERT BAER: Yeah.

STEWART HOWE: That tells us something.

ROBERT BAER: What?

STEWART HOWE: That tells us something.

ROBERT BAER: Well his brother worked at the White House.”

(Source: WeAreChangeLA debriefs CIA Case Officer Robert Baer about apparent Mossad and White House 9/11 foreknowledge)

This truly remarkable statement bears further scrutiny. If Baer is to be believed, a former CIA agent has first-hand knowledge that a White House insider had foreknowledge of the attacks, and to this day not only has Baer never revealed the identity of this person, but no one has questioned him about his statement or even attempted to pursue this lead.

So how is it possible that the SEC overlooked, ignored, or simply chose not to pursue such leads in their investigation? The only possible answer, of course, is that the investigation was deliberately steered away from such persons of interest and any connections that would lead back to foreknowledge by government agencies, federal agents, or their associates in the business world.

Unfortunately we will likely never see documentary evidence of that from the Commission itself. One researcher requesting access under the Freedom of Information Act to the documentary evidence that the 9/11 Commission used to conclude there had been no insider trading received a response that stated “that the potentially responsive records have been destroyed.”

Instead, we are left with sources that refuse to be identified saying that CBOE records of pre-9/11 options trading have been destroyed and second-hand accounts of traders who had heard talk of an event in advance of 9/11.

In a round-about way, perhaps the 9/11 Commission reveals more than it lets on when it tries to dismiss key insider trades with the pithy observation that the traders had no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda. If those with foreknowledge of the attacks weren’t connected to Al Qaeda, what does that say about the identity of the real 9/11 perpetrators?

ANTONIO MORA: “ABC News has now learned that the Chicago Board of Options Exchange launched their investigation into the unusual trading last week. That may have given them enough time to stop anyone from profiting from death here in the U.S. It may also give investigators, Peter, a ‘hot trail’ that might lead them to the terrorists.

PETER JENNINGS: Thanks very much. As a reminder of the complications here, the Secretary of the Treasury said here today of this investigation” ‘You’ve got to go through ten veils before you can get to the real source.’

ANTONIO MORA: Yeah.

PETER JENNINGS: Thanks Antonio.”

(Source: 9/11 Wall Street Blames Put Option Inside Trading On Terrorists)

PTech and Vulgar Betrayal

PTech was a Quincy, Mass. based company specializing in “enterprise architecture software,” a type of powerful computer modeling program that allows large-scale organizations to map their systems and employees and to monitor them in real time. The person running this software has a “God’s-eye” view of  processes, personnel and transactions, and even the ability to use this data to foresee problems before they happen and to intervene to stop them from happening.

As a senior consultant working on risk management for JPMorgan at the time of 9/11, Indira Singh was looking for exactly this type of software to implement the bank’s next-generation risk-blueprint. In her search for the ultimate risk management software, PTech’s name was floated as the best candidate for the task.

INDIRA SINGH: “I had a good life. I did ‘risk’ at JP Morgan Chase, just to take a break from all the heavy stuff. What I’d do was to devise a way to monitor everything going on in a very large company to stop big problems from happening. There is that little cloud there and my very bizarre picture of how I think about this problem. I am a person who was merging two disciplines: Risk Management and something called ‘Enterprise Architecture’ which is fairly esoteric but at the end of the day, we seek to prevent large problems from happening anywhere in a large global enterprise.

At JP Morgan I was working on the next generation ‘risk blueprint’ which is all about how to prevent these things from happening. Bad business practice such as money laundering, rogue trading and massive computer failures, anything you could imagine (that) could go wrong.

I had a lot of leeway consulting as a ‘Senior Risk Architect’ to think out of the box and actually get my ideas implemented. I was funded out of a strategic fund, I reported to the directors and I was pretty happy. JP Morgan thought very highly of me and they were thinking of funding, in conjunction with my project in D.C., the next-generation risk software.

What I need to do (and) what I did was (find) a really smart piece of software. Really, really smart. It’s job would be to think about all of the information and this is where you may connect a dot. The job of this software would be to think about all of the information that represented what was going on in the enterprise at any given time as bank business was being transacted world-wide. For example, it would (act) as a surveillance software that looked for trading patterns that indicated that someone was up too no good and then do something about it: send a message somewhere, send transaction information somewhere, perhaps shut their system down, perhaps shut another system down, perhaps start something else up elsewhere. This type of capability is very, very essential in today’s world.

However this kind of software is not found in Microsoft or not even in IBM. A small group of very esoteric software companies make this kind of enterprise software and it is very pricey. So you can’t afford to pick wrong and I asked all my colleagues who were industry gurus; what would they recommend for this?

My buddies recommended PTech.”

(Source: 9/11 Omission Hearings – Indira Singh Reads Sibel Edmonds’ Letter – 9/9/2004)

Indeed, it’s not difficult to see why PTech came so highly recommended. Given the nature of this sensitive risk-management work, only a company with experience delivering software to large-scale organizations with secrets to protect would fit the bill, and in this regard PTech did not disappoint. Their client roster included a veritable who’s who of top-level corporate and governmental clients: the FBI, the IRS, NATO, the Air Force, the Naval Air Command, the Departments of Energy and Education, the Postal Service, the US House of Representatives, the Department of Defense, the Secret Service, even the White House.

From the inner sanctum of the White House to the headquarters of the FBI, from the basement of the FAA to the boardroom of IBM, some of the best-secured organizations in the world running on some of the most protected servers housing the most sensitive data welcomed PTech into their midst. PTech was given the keys to the cyber kingdom to build detailed pictures of these organizations, their weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and to show how these problems could be exploited by those of ill intent. But like all such systems, it could be exploited by those of ill intent for their own purposes, too.

Given the nature of the information and secrets being kept by its clients, it should come as no surprise that many of PTech’s top investors and employees were men with backgrounds that should have been raising red flags at all levels of the government. And as it turns out, at least one of these men did raise red flags with a pair of diligent FBI field agents.

In the late 1990s, Robert Wright and John Vincent—FBI special agents in the Chicago field office—were running an investigation into terrorist financing called Vulgar Betrayal. From the very start, the investigation was hampered by higher-ups; they were not even given access to the computer equipment needed to carry out their work. Through Wright and Vincent’s foresight and perseverance, however, the investigation managed to score some victories, including seizing $1.4 million in terrorist funds. According to Wright, “these funds were linked directly to Saudi businessman Yasin al-Qadi.”

Yasin al-Qadi is a multi-millionaire businessman and philanthropist who, according to business associates, liked to boast of his relationship with former Vice President Dick Cheney. But in the late 1990s he was sanctioned by the UN Security Council for his suspected links to Al Qaeda, and after 9/11 he was put on a terrorist watch list by the US Treasury for his suspected ties to terrorist financing.

During the 1990s, as Vulgar Betrayal was being thwarted from opening a criminal investigation into his activities, the Qadi-backed investment firm Sarmany Ltd. became an “angel investor” to a software startup called PTech, providing $5 million of the initial $20 million of capital that got PTech off the ground.

At the time, PTech’s CEO denied that al-Qadi had any involvement with the company other than his initial investment, but the FBI now maintains he was lying and that in fact al-Qadi continued investing millions of dollars in the company through various fronts and investment vehicles. Company insiders told FBI officials that they were flown to Saudi Arabia to meet PTech’s investors in 1999 and that al-Qadi was introduced as one of the owners. It has also been reported that Hussein Ibrahim, PTech’s chief scientist, was al-Qadi’s representative at PTech and al-Qadi’s lawyers have admitted that al-Qadi’s representative may have continued to sit on PTech’s board even after 9/11.

Ibrahim himself was a former president of BMI, a New Jersey-based real estate investment firm that was also one of the initial investors in PTech and provided financing for PTech’s founding loan. PTech leased office space and computer equipment from BMI and BMI shared office space in New Jersey with Kadi International, owned and operated by none other than Yassin al-Qadi. In 2003, counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke said: “BMI held itself out publicly as a financial services provider for Muslims in the United States, its investor list suggests the possibility this facade was just a cover to conceal terrorist support.”

Suheil Laheir was PTech’s chief architect. When he wasn’t writing the software that would provide PTech with detailed operational blueprints of the most sensitive agencies in the U.S. government, he was writing articles in praise of Islamic holy war. He was also fond of quoting Abdullah Azzam, Osama Bin Laden’s mentor and the head of Maktab al-Khidamat, which was the precursor to Al-Qaeda.

That such an unlikely cast of characters were given access to some of the most sensitive agencies in the U.S. federal government is startling enough. That they were operating software that allowed them to map, analyze and access every process and operation within these agencies for the purpose of finding systemic weak points is equally startling. Most disturbing of all, though, is the connection between PTech and the very agencies that so remarkably “failed” in their duty to protect the American public on September 11, 2001.

BONNIE FAULKNER: “Could you describe the relationship of PTech with the FAA? PTech worked with the FAA for several years, didn’t they?

INDIRA SINGH: Yes. It was a joint project between PTech and MITRE. It is interesting. They were looking at, basically, holes in the FAA’s interoperability with responding with other agencies – law enforcement – in the case of an emergency such as a hijacking.

They were looking for the escalation process – what people would do, how they would respond in case of an emergency – and find the holes and make recommendations to fix it. Now if anyone was in a position to understand where the holes were, PTech was, and that is exactly the point: if anybody was in a position to write software to take advantage of those holes, it would have been PTech.

BONNIE FAULKNER: Was there a reference to PTech having operated in the basement out of the FAA?

INDIRA SINGH: Yes. Typically, because the scope of such projects are so over-arching and wide-ranging, when you are doing an enterprise architecture project, you have access to how anything in the organization is being done, where it is being done, on what systems, what the information is. You have carte blanche.

If it is a major project that spends several years, the team that comes in has, literally, access to almost anything that they want because you are operating on a blueprint level, on a massive scale. So, yes, they were everywhere, and I was told that they were in places that required clearances. I was told that they had log-on access to FAA flight control computers. I was told that they had passwords to many computers that you may not, on the surface, think has anything to do with finding out holes in the system, but let’s say you isolated part of a notification process that was mediated by computer and you wanted to investigate it further, then you would typically get log-on access to that computer. From that, back upstream or downstream. So, who knows?

From my own experience I could have access to almost anything I wanted to in J.P. Morgan-Chase. And, did not, for the reason that if anything went wrong, I did not want to have the access. But if you were up to no good as an enterprise architect with such a mandate, you typically could have access to anything.”

(Source: Guns n Butter Indira Singh , PTech and the 911 software)

So who was really behind PTech? Did Ziade, Ibrahim and the others somehow evade the due diligence of all of the government agencies and multinational corporations that PTech contracted with? Did PTech just happen to end up working on the interoperability of the FAA and the Pentagon systems on the morning of 9/11? Did al-Qadi’s friend Dick Cheney really know nothing of Qadi’s connections or activities? Was this all some devious Al Qaeda plot to infiltrate key systems and agencies of the US government?

Not according to the people who were really investigating the company.

INDIRA SINGH: “Who’s really behind PTech is the question. Correct. I asked that of many intelligence people who came to my aid as I was being blacklisted and I was told: ‘Indira, it is a CIA clandestine operation on the level of Iran-Contra. And I have reason to believe this because CARE International is a renamed version of Al Kifah which was the finding arm for WTC 93, prior to Al Kifah it was called Maktab al-Khidamat which was the funding arms for the Afghani mujahidin. It was how the moneys got to Osama Bin-Laden throught the Pakistani ISI.

I asked the FBI in Boston: ‘How come Mak was being run out of Ptech and 9/11?’ and that jived with a lot of what intel was telling me that ‘it’s a CIA front, shut up and go away.’ At that level I said ‘Well why doesn’t the FBI take advantage of their celebrated difference with the CIA’ and I was told ‘because at that level they work together’.”

Source: 9/11 Omission Hearings – Michael Ruppert & Indira Singh Q&A – 9/9/2004)

So what did the 9/11 Commission have to say about PTech? Absolutely nothing. The co-chair of the commission, Thomas Kean, had been involved in a $24 million real estate transaction with BMI, one of the PTech investors, but no mention was made of that at the time and the commission never looked into PTech or its activities on 9/11.

Meanwhile, Cheney’s friend al-Qadi has since been removed from the Swiss, European, UN Security Council and US Treasury terrorist sanctions lists.

And Robert Wright? After Vulgar Betrayal was shut down, the FBI did eventually raid PTech’s offices in December 2002…but not before the company was given advance warning of the “raid.” The very next day then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge declared that PTech “in no way jeopardizes the security of the country.”

Oussama Ziade is still wanted by the FBI for lying about al-Qadi’s involvement with the company, but the case is now cold.

ROBERT WRIGHT: “To the families and victims….of September 11th…on behalf of John Vincent, Barry Carnaby and myself…we’re sorry.”

(Source: 9-11 FBI Whistleblower Robert Wright Testimony)

The Pentagon’s Missing Trillions

DONALD RUMSFELD: The topic today is an adversary that poses a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America. This adversary is one of the world’s last bastions of central planning. It governs by dictating five-year plans. From a single capital, it attempts to impose its demands across time zones, continents, oceans and beyond. With brutal consistency, it stifles free thought and crushes new ideas. It disrupts the defense of the United States and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk.

(Source: Defense Business Practices)

On September 10, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared a new war. Not a war on a shadowy terrorist organization in Afghanistan, or even a war on terror, but a war on the Pentagon itself.

DONALD RUMSFELD: The adversary is closer to home. It’s the Pentagon bureaucracy.

(Source: Defense Business Practices)

Perhaps it is no surprise that Rumsfeld felt compelled to declare a war on the Pentagon’s bureaucracy. The issue of the Pentagon’s $2.3 trillion accounting nightmare had been dogging him since his confirmation hearings in January of 2001. Although Rumsfeld was interested in pushing forward a modernization of the military that was projected to cost an additional $50 billion in funding, that agenda was politically impossible in the face of the Department of Defense’s monumental budget problem.

SEN. BYRD: How can we seriously consider a $50 billion increase in the Defense Department budget when DoD’s own auditors — when DoD’s own auditors say the department cannot account for $2.3 trillion in transactions in one year alone

Now, my question to you is, Mr. Secretary, what do you plan to do about this?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Decline the nomination! (Laughs.) (Laughter.) Ah! Senator, I have heard —

SEN. BYRD: I don’t want to see you do that! (Laughter.)

SEN. LEVIN: (Sounds gavel.) We’ll stand adjourned, in that case! (Laughter.)

DONALD RUMSFELD: Senator, I have heard some of that and read some of that, that the department is not capable of auditing its books. It is — I was going to say “terrifying.”

(Source: Defense Secretary Nomination Hearing Jan 11 2001)

“Terrifying” only begins to describe the problem.

The Department of Defense’s own Inspector General report for Fiscal Year 1999 noted that the the Defense Finance and Accounting Service had processed $7.6 trillion of department-level accounting entries in that year. Of that amount, only $3.5 trillion could be properly accounted for. $2.3 trillion in transactions were fudged to make entries balance, run through without proper documentation, or made up entirely. The Inspector General’s office did not even examine the other $1.8 trillion in transactions because they “did not have adequate time or staff to review” them.

In 2002 one DFAS accountant blew the whistle on the problem, and the cover up that was underway to stop investigators from finding out where the money went.

VINCE GONZALES: $2.3 trillion with a “T.” That’s 8000 dollars for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

JIM MINNERY: We know it’s gone, but we don’t know what they spent it on.

VINCE GONZALES: Jim Minnery, a former Marine turned whistleblower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency’s balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money trail, even criss-crossing the country looking for records.

JIM MINNERY: The director looked at me and said “Why do you care about this stuff?” That took me aback, you know. My supervisor asked me why I care about doing a good job.

VINCE GONZALES: He was reassigned, and says officials then covered up the problem by just writing it off.

JIM MINNERY: They’ve got to cover it up.

(Source: 9-11 Pentagon missing $2.3 trillion)

As Comptroller of the Pentagon from 2001 to 2004, Dov Zakheim was the man tasked with solving this problem.

DONALD RUMSFELD: There are all kinds of long- standing rules and regulations about what you can do and what you can’t do. I know Dr. Zakheim’s been trying to hire CPAs because the financial systems of the department are so snarled up that we can’t account for some $2.6 trillion in transactions that exist, if that’s believable. And yet we’re told that we can’t hire CPAs to help untangle it in many respects

REP. LEWIS: Mr. Secretary, the first time and the last time that Dov Zackheim and I broke bread together, he told me he would have a handle on that 2.6 trillion by now. (Laughter.) But we’ll discuss that a little —

DONALD RUMSFELD: He’s got a handle; it’s just a little hot. (Laughter.)

(Source: Testimony before the House Appropriations Committee: FY2002 Budget Request)

From 1987 to 2001 Zakheim headed SPC International, a subsidiary of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor providing airwarfare, cybersecurity and advanced military electronics to the Department of Defense and DARPA. SPC’s “Radar Physics Laboratory” developed a remote control system for airborne vehicles that they were marketing to the Pentagon prior to 9/11.

Zakheim was also a participant in drafting “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” a document that called for a sweeping transformation of the US military, including the implementation of the $50 billion missile defense program and increased use of specialized military technologies. The paper even noted how “advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

“Rebuilding America’s Defenses” was a white paper produced by the Project for the New American Century, a group founded in 1997 with the goal of projecting American global dominance into the 21st century. Joining Zakheim in the group were a host of other neocons who ended up populating the Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Jeb Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld. In their September 2000 document, the group lamented that their plan for transforming the military was not likely unless a defining event took place, one that would galvanize public opinion: “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

DONALD RUMSFELD: We know that the thing that tends to register on people is fear, and we know that that tends to happen after there’s a Pearl Harbor, tends to happen after there’s a crisis. And that’s too late for us. We’ve got to be smarter than that. We’ve got to be wiser than that. We have to be more forward-looking

There’s a wonderful book on Pearl Harbor by Roberta Wohlstetter, and a forward by Dr. Schelling, that talks about this problem of seeing things happen and not integrating them in your mind and saying, “Yes, we need to be doing something about that now,” that I reread periodically because it’s so important.

(Source: Defense Secretary Nomination Hearing Jan 11 2001)

And on 9/11/2001, America received its new Pearl Harbor.

The attack on the Pentagon struck Wedge One on the west side of the building. An office of the U.S. Army called Resource Services Washington had just moved back into Wedge One after renovations had taken place there. The office was staffed with 45 accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. 34 of them were killed in the attack.

2002 follow-up report from the DoD Inspector General on the missing trillions noted that a further $1.1 trillion in made up accounting entries were processed by the Pentagon in fiscal year 2000, but they did not even attempt to quantify the missing funds for 2001. The Secretary of the Army, Thomas White, later explained they were unable to produce a financial report for 2001 at all due to “”the loss of financial-management personnel sustained during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.”

Before becoming Secretary of the Army, Thomas White was a senior executive at Enron. Enron was one of the largest energy companies in the world, posting a $111 billion profit in 2000 before being exposed as an elaborate corporate accounting fraud in 2001. The SEC, which investigated the Enron scandal, occupied the 11th to 13th floors in World Trade Center Building 7, and their offices were destroyed on 9/11, destroying 3000 to 4000 documents on active investigations in the process.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Rumsfeld’s War on the Pentagon’s Bureacracy did not yield the results he promised. By 2013, the unaccountable money in the Pentagon’s coffers had reach $8.5 trillion.

The latest scandal to hit Washington comes from a report revealing the Pentagon “misplaced” $8.5 trillion. Military leaders have also been found ordering subordinates to doctor books to hide the missing money. This is the conclusion of a special report by Reuters.

One former Pentagon employee, Linda Woodford, said she spent 15 years there falsifying financial records. Woodford had a job checking Navy accounting records against figures supplied by the Treasury Department. She said money was missing from the report every month.

(Source: $8.5 Trillion Missing From Pentagon Budget)

GAYANE CHICHAKYAN: National security expert Steve Miles is here with me to help us crunch these numbers. $8.5 trillion unaccounted for?

STEPHEN MILES: That’s a lot of money. This is the kind of thing that you would think would bring Capitol Hill to a screeching halt. There’d be hearings almost every day. You’d have various committees looking into it. None of that. It just leads to massive waste and there can be all sorts of fraud that you don’t know about.

Just one example, when the Inspector General looked at Iraq — which was a lot of money, but in the grand scheme just a portion of the money the U.S. spent — what they found was about $50 billion of the money the U.S. spent there was wasted and about $6 billion was completely lost. They had no idea where it went, it was completely unaccounted for. Put that in perspective. That’s about the amount of money that other countries would spend on their defense, total. And that’s just the loose pocket change that we lost in the couch.

GAYANE CHICHAKYAN: One thing I found very interesting in this report is that the Pentagon apparently uses standard operating procedure to enter false numbers, or so-called “plugs” to cover lost or missing information in their accounting in order to submit a balanced budget to the Treasury. So they can write in everything.

STEPHEN MILES: This is probably the most shocking part of this. They get to the end of the day and they say, “Oh, there’s money missing, what do we do?” “Well we’ll just put a number in there that says it’s there and we’ll sort it out later.” Again this is the type of operating practice that if you did it in your own business — if you try to do it with your own taxes for the government, they’d haul you off to jail.

(Source: Black Budget: US govt clueless about missing Pentagon $trillions)

But then, given that the trillions have never been accounted for, and given that American defense spending soared to record levels after the attack, perhaps Rumsfeld’s war on the Pentagon, the one he announced on September 10th, was successful after all. And perhaps September 11th was the key battle in that war.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Some might ask, how in the world could the Secretary of Defense attack the Pentagon in front of its people? To them I reply, I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it.

(Source: Defense Business Practices)

No Conclusion

Insurance scams and insider trading, electronic fraud and vulgar betrayal, missing money and evidence destroyed. There are at least 8.5 trillion reasons to investigate the money trail of 9/11.

Curious, then, that the US government’s final word on the attacks, the 9/11 Commission Report, concluded that the money trail was not worthy of investigation at all. In Chapter Five of the report, the commission noted: “To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.”

9/11 was a crime. And as every detective knows, the first rule of criminal investigation is to follow the money. So why did the 9/11 Commission specifically reject this rule?

The answers to 9/11 are not going to come from the suspects of the crime. Instead, it’s up to investigators to continue to unearth the true evidence on the 9/11 money trail.

Follow the money…

Posted in External Sources | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Following The 9/11 Money Trail

9/11 Insider Trading Explained

by James Corbett
TheInternationalForecaster.com
September 5, 2015

Following is an excerpt from the forthcoming Corbett Report podcast documentary, 9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money. The documentary will be available for free viewing and download on corbettreport.com on September 11, 2015

On September 12, 2001, before the dust had even settled on Ground Zero, the Securities and Exchange Commission opened an investigation into a chilling proposition: that an unknown group of traders with advance knowledge of the 9/11 plot had made millions betting against the companies involved in the attacks.

As Antonio Mora of ABC News explained on September 20, 2001:

“What many Wall Street analysts believe is that the terrorists made bets that a number of stocks would see their prices fall. They did so by buying what they call ‘puts.’ If you bet right the rewards can be huge. The risks are also huge unless you know something bad is going to happen to the company you’re betting against.

“One example, United Airlines. The Thursday before the attack more than two thousand contracts betting that the stock would go down were purchased. Ninety times more in one day than in three weeks. When the markets reopened, United’s stock dropped, the price of the contracts soared and someone may have made a lot of money, fast.”

911airlinestockAlthough the put options on American and United Airlines are usually cited in reference to the 9/11 insider trading, these trades only represent a fraction of the suspicious trades leading up to the attack. Between August 20th and September 10th, abnormally large spikes in put option activity appeared in trades involving dozens of different companies whose stocks plunged after the attack including Boeing, Merrill Lynch, J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Munich Re and the AXA Group.

Traders weren’t just betting against the companies whose stocks dove after 9/11, however. There was also a six-fold increase in call options on the stock of defense contractor Raytheon on the day before 9/11. The options allowed the traders to buy Raytheon stock at $25. Within a week of the attack, as the American military began deploying the Raytheon-supplied Tomohawk missiles they would eventually use in the invasion of Afghanistan, the company’s share price had shot up 37% to over $34.

The SEC weren’t the only ones interested in this particular 9/11 money trail, either. Investigations into potential insider trading before the attacks were opened by authorities around the globe, from Belgium to France to Germany to Switzerland to Japan. It wasn’t long before this global financial manhunt started yielding clues on the trail of the terror traders.

On September 17th Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Martino, addressing Italian Consob’s own investigation into potential 9/11 trading, said: “I think that there are terrorist states and organizations behind speculation on the international markets.”

By September 24th the Belgian Finance Minister, Didier Reynders, was confident enough to publicly announce Belgium’s “strong suspicions that British markets may have been used for transactions.”

insider_trading_091204_mnThe president of Germany’s central bank, Ernst Welteke, was the most adamant: “What we found makes us sure that people connected to the terrorists must have been trying to profit from this tragedy.”

These foreign leaders were not alone in their conviction that insider trading had taken place. University of Chicago finance professor George Constantinides, Columbia University law professor John Coffee, Duke University law professor James Cox and other academics as well as well-known options traders like Jon Najarian all expressed their belief that investors had traded on advance knowledge of the attacks.

The scale of the SEC investigation was unprecedented. Examining over 9.5 million securities transactions, including stocks and options in 103 different companies trading in 7 markets, 32 exchange traded funds, and stock indices. The probe drew on the assistance of the legal and compliance staff of the 20 largest trading firms and the regulatory authorities in ten foreign governments. The Commission coordinated its investigation with the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the Department of the Treasury.

The result of this investigation?

“We have not developed any evidence suggesting that those who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks traded on the basis of that information.”

Although this sounds like the investigation did not find evidence of insider trading, a second look reveals the trick; they are not saying that there was no insider trading, only that there is no evidence that “those who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks” participated in such trading. But this begs the question: who had that advance knowledge, and how did the SEC determine this?

911commevidenceThe 9/11 Commission Report begs the question even more blatantly in their treatment of the anomalous put option activity on United Airlines stock on September 6: 95% of the puts were placed by “a single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda.” Again, it is taken as a foregone conclusion that a lack of ties to “al Qaeda” means there could not have been advance knowledge of the attack, even if evidence of insider trading took place.

To be sure, insider trading almost certainly did take place in the weeks before 9/11. Although some have used the commission report to conclude that the story was debunked, the intervening years have seen the release of not one, not two, but three separate scientific papers concluding with high probability that the anomalous trading was the result of advance knowledge.

In “Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001” University of Chicago professor Allen Poteshman concluded: “Examination of the option trading leading up to September 11 reveals
that there was an unusually high level of put buying. This finding is consistent with informed investors having traded options in advance of the attacks.”

In “Detecting Abnormal Trading Activities in Option Markets” researchers at the University of Zurich used econometric methods to confirm unusual put option activity on the stocks of key airlines, banks and re-insurers in the weeks prior to 9/11.

And in “Was There Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?” a team of researchers concluded that abnormal activity in the S&P index options market around the time of the attack “is consistent with insiders anticipating the 9-11 attacks.”

The only question, then, is who was profiting from these trades and why was no one ever indicted for their participation in them?

One lead is pursued by researcher and author Kevin Ryan. In “Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11” he examines an FBI briefing document from 2003 that was declassified in 2009. It describes the results of FBI investigations into two of the pre-9/11 trades that the Bureau had identified as suspicious, including the purchase of 56,000 shares of Stratesec in the days prior to 9/11. Stratesec provided security systems to airports (including, ironically, Dulles Airport, as well as the World Trade Center and United Airlines), and saw its share price almost double when the markets re-opened on September 17th, 2001.

George and Marvin BushThe trades traced back to a couple whose names are redacted from the memo, but are easily identifiable from the unredacted information: Mr. and Mrs. Wirt D. Walker III, a distant relative of the Bush family and business partner of Marvin Bush, the president’s brother. The document notes that the pair were never even interviewed as part of the investigation because it had “revealed no ties to terrorism or other negative information.”

In addition to begging the question, this characterization is provably false. As Ryan notes:

“Wirt Walker was connected to people who had connections to al Qaeda. For example, Stratesec director James Abrahamson was the business partner of Mansoor Ijaz, who claimed on several occasions to be able to contact Osama bin Laden. Additionally, Walker hired a number of Stratesec employees away from a subsidiary of The Carlyle Group called BDM International, which ran secret (black) projects for government agencies. The Carlyle Group was partly financed by members of the bin Laden family.”

More importantly, and not coincidentally, Walker has multiple connections to the Central Intelligence Agency.

“Mr. Walker ran a number of suspicious companies that went bankrupt, including Stratesec, some of which were underwritten by a company run by a first cousin of former CIA director (and President) George H.W. Bush. Additionally, Walker was the child of a CIA employee and his first job was at an investment firm run by former US intelligence guru, James ‘Russ’ Forgan, where he worked with another former CIA director, William Casey.”

Was this why the FBI thought better of questioning him over his highly profitable purchase of Stratesec shares right before 9/11?

cia911The CIA figures prominently in another line of investigation. One suspicious United Airlines put option purchase that was investigated by the FBI involved a 2,500 contract order for puts in the days before 9/11. Instead of processing the purchase through United Airlines’ home exchange, the Chicago Board of Options Exchange, the order was split into five 500 contract chunks and run through five different option exchanges simultaneously. The unusual order was brokered by Deutsch Bank Alex. Brown, a firm that until 1998 was chaired by A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard, a former consultant to CIA director James Woolsey who at the time of 9/11 was himself the Executive Director of the CIA.

According to researcher Michael Ruppert, Krongard’s job at the brokerage “was to oversee ‘private client relations.’ In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.”

Perhaps the most frank admission of insider trading is notable for three things: it was recorded on video, it has never been investigated by any agency or law enforcement official, and it was made by former CIA agent and frequent foreign policy commentator Robert Baer, the real-life inspiration for the character portrayed by George Clooney in “Syriana.” Talking to citizen journalists after a speaking event in Los Angeles in 2008, Baer was recorded on video making a startling assertion about 9/11 insider trading: “I know the guy who went into his broker in San Diego and said ‘cash me out, it’s going down tomorrow.’” Questioned about the story, he added: “His brother worked at the White House.”

This truly remarkable statement bears further scrutiny. If Baer is to be believed, a former CIA agent has first-hand knowledge that a White House insider had foreknowledge of the attacks, and to this day not only has Baer never revealed the identity of this person, but no one has questioned him about his statement or even attempted to pursue this lead.

So how is it possible that the SEC overlooked, ignored, or simply chose not to pursue such leads in their investigation? The only possible answer, of course, is that the investigation was deliberately steered away from such persons of interest and any connections that would lead back to foreknowledge by government agencies, federal agents, or their associates in the business world.

Unfortunately we will likely never see documentary evidence of that from the Commission itself. One researcher requesting access under the Freedom of Information Act to the documentary evidence that the 9/11 Commission used to conclude there had been no insider trading received a response that stated “that the potentially responsive records have been destroyed.”

Delete-Button-Key-ActosInstead, we are left with sources that refuse to be identified saying that CBOE records of pre-9/11 options trading have been destroyed and second-hand accounts of traders who had heard talk of an event in advance of 9/11.

In a round-about way, perhaps the 9/11 Commission reveals more than it lets on when it tries to dismiss key insider trades with the pithy observation that the traders had no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda. If those with foreknowledge of the attacks weren’t connected to Al Qaeda, what does that say about the identity of the real 9/11 perpetrators?

Recommended Reading and Viewing

Recommended Reading

Putin Says Dump Dollar + BRICS Actively Pushing for IMF Reforms
80 Year Old Trampled To Death In Venezuela Supermarket – ZeroHedge
Nestle vs. California Drought 2015 – The Anti-Media

Recommended Listening

Ed Opperman on the Jeffery Epstein case

Recommended Viewing

Iran Contra “have we lost our way?”
WDBJ Virginia Shooting: DEBUNKING Hoax Theories
Ptech built Supply Chain Infrastructure

Just For Fun

Peladophobian h/t Apollo Slater

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Episode 8: Sandpoint911truth.org Brings WTC 7 to City Hall.

A National call to action. Demand a new investigation. For more details, visit Sandpoint911truth.org.

Posted in 9/11, CYM Videos, Sandpoint Local, Solutions | Tagged | Leave a comment