OPEN COMPLICITY: ANATOMY OF THE 911 COVERUP
Sitting-Bull Tue, 11/27/2007 - 1:46pm
A fellow researcher presented this link today on a german forum, I think it is a must see, and I'm wondering why this has so little views.
Why did so many insiders go out of their way to incriminate themselves?
Website:
http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1213915581&channel=340485663
If it stops around the second half just go on a few seconds with the mouse.
- Sitting-Bull's blog
- Login to post comments
This was actually posted many months ago
but didn't receive much attention.
It raises some decent questions, but I'm not sure the explanation it provides makes much sense.
The film is right to point out that the put options traded before 9/11 are a surprisingly little amount; so, if someone was trying to capitalize on 9/11, why did he make such a small bet that would be detected much like a large bet? The film suggests this is some kind of "open complicity," a signal to the criminal element that 9/11 was an inside job, and not an attempt to profit (after all, why gamble so little if you want to profit from 9/11? why gamble at all?). I don't see the point in this explanation.
Similarly, it suggests Bush sitting in the classroom in Florida was like some kind of Illuminati handshake meant to tell the other deep political actors that Bush is in on it. Again, many other explanations seem more plausible, and still point to Bush's complicity. For example, his PR appointment kept him out of the loop while the plan was executed. Plausible deniability.
Thx for your reply
I didn't notice it, so it seems indeed true that it did not get much attention.
They points they made are very well stated and presented.
My own vague feelings about these issues were adressed. I made my own thoughts about the put options as well, because someone without the highest cover could not really think to get away with it, as all trades were documented, sttled and filed by the bankings, the SEC, the FBI etc.
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=982&hl=
And the other aspect, "open complicity", may indeed take a role in this conspiracy.- I labeled it once as "conspiracy by common criminal past", one crow don't attack another.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/04/911-7-man-job.html#11441754...
The best one single photo evidence is the photo of Rumsfeld and Cheney with Ford. A democracy tends to be vulnerable for hacks to attack it, or how could someone explain the fact that these evil masterminds are around the center of power for a mere 30 years?
Now consider the possible role of Rumsfeld in the massacres of Vietnam- and the open complicity case will get even harder. Or the case of the once attorney against muslim terror Patrick Fitzgerald.
And the media, at one point too much in on it, has is hard to expose the full truth as they had to explain why they didn't expose it earlier.