http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/bush-knew2.htm

CIA and the Markets

We can thank Fox News on Oct. 16 for breaking post 9-11 stories disclosing the use of sophisticated PROMIS software by the FBI and the Justice Department. A multitude of court records and investigative reports have established not only the reality, but the versatility of a program initially designed to incorporate data from a variety of data bases in different languages into one readable format. PROMIS has since been refined to include artificial intelligence and ”back doors” inserted by intelligence agencies to allow for surreptitious retrieval and/or removal and alteration of data.

The Fox stories clearly confirmed, especially when added to stories from last summer by the Washington Times which were based on interviews with Justice Department officials, that PROMIS was used to monitor banking and financial transactions in a virtual real-time environment.

This writer has written extensively on the software. More information can be found on the Web site at http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/index.html.

However, one point is critical to this report. In the Autumn of 2000 I was visited in Los Angeles by two members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) national security staff. They were conducting a major investigation inside the U.S. to determine whether or not the RCMP’s version of the software had been compromised. During discussions with the Mounties, I confirmed several times that the software was used to monitor stock trades in real time. A subsequent investigation led me to contact several people in Canada who had been interviewed in the same investigation. They were stockbrokers.

In a taped panel discussion, which aired March 14 on Canada’s Vision-TV, I faced a panel of three Canadian experts on the issue of U.S. foreknowledge of, and possible complicity in, the 9-11 attacks. Among them was Ron Atkey, former Canadian Solicitor-General and the former parliamentary head of the committee charged with oversight of Canada’s military and intelligence operations. Over the course of the program I made specific statements, relying not only on the RCMP interactions but also on previous investigations, in which it was documented that intelligence services track stock trades in real time. On camera, I produced the business cards of the two RCMP agents. Atkey, who had not hesitated to challenge me on other points during the show, went silent.

INTELLIGENCE SUCCESSES

Four basic intelligence successes need to be acknowledged here. These admitted successes, while not addressing any other still secret penetrations of the Al Qaeda network, further diminish any Bush Administration assertion that it did not know of the attacks.

On Feb. 13 United Press International terrorism correspondent Richard Sale, while covering a Manhattan trial of one of Osama bin Laden’s followers, reported that the National Security Agency had broken bin Laden’s encrypted communications. Even if that prompted an immediate change in bin Laden’s methods of communication, just six months before the attacks, the administration has consistently maintained -- and military and covert experience dictates -- that the attacks were planned for at least several years.

The FAZ story indicates that the secret eavesdropping program Echelon had been successful in securing details of the pending attacks. Echelon employs highly sophisticated computer programs capable of both voice and word recognition to filter billions of telephone conversations and locate specific targets. Assuming, as some sources indicate, Al Qaeda stopped using encrypted communications after it was known that their system was compromised, why was the NSA not able to pick up any cell phone calls or e-mails? Mohammed Atta and other alleged hijackers were known to have used cell phones. The FAZ story establishes that as late as June, Al Qaeda operatives were being tracked in this manner.

In the trial of a former Deutschebank executive Kevin Ingram, who pled guilty to laundering drug money to finance terrorist operations linked to Al Qaeda just two weeks before the 9-11 attacks, indications surfaced that the Justice Department had penetrated the terrorists’ financial networks. A Nov. 16 Associated Press story by Catherine Wilson stated, “Numerous promised wire transfers never arrived, but there were discussions of foreign bankers taking payoffs to move the money to purchase weapons into the United States, said prosecutor Rolando Garcia.”

Two questions are begged but unanswered. How were the wire transfers blocked and how was the Justice Department able to monitor the money flows without alerting either the bankers or the suspects?

Finally, as reported by the German paper Die Welt on Dec. 6 and by Agence France Presse on Dec. 7, Western intelligence services, including the CIA, learned after arrests in the Philippines, that Al Qaeda operatives had planned to crash commercial airliners into the WTC. Details of the plan, as reported by a number of American press outlets, were found on a computer seized during the arrests. The plan was called “operation Bojinka.”

Details of the plot were disclosed publicly in 1997 in the New York trial of Ramsi Youssef for his involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing.

http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/bush-knew2.htm

DELMART “MIKE” VREELAND

“I believe that, from the information I have seen, Mike Vreeland tried to pass information to the Canadian government that should have been passed to the U.S. government. That information had to do with the attacks of Sept. 11. Whatever other attempts were made by Vreeland and his attorneys to alert U.S. and Canadian officials of the attacks, it is clear that he did pass information about the pending attacks to his guards in August. I am willing to go to the Secretary of the Navy to determine whether or not he was actually a Navy officer.

“I know that there have been other U.S. citizens with a similar background used on missions similar to what has been alleged by Vreeland. This man fits a pattern. I would like for the Secret Service to put him on a polygraph.” -- Mike Osborne, a veteran former CIA case officer with 26 years of experience in counter-terrorism.

With a court record now estimated to approach 10,000 pages, the case of Delmart “Mike” Vreeland is starting to attract worldwide attention. Vreeland, with a growing amount of evidence admitted into court record in Toronto, Canada, claims to be a former U.S. Naval lieutenant assigned to the Office of Naval Intelligence. He was jailed in Canada -- at the request of U.S. authorities -- in December 2000 after returning from Moscow.

Although Canadian authorities initially alleged vague fraud charges against him and also held him on an extradition warrant alleging credit card fraud in Michigan, the actual motive for his arrest now seems to be something quite different. All Canadian charges against Vreeland were dropped this March and he has been granted political refugee status in Canada until the extradition issues are resolved.

Vreeland’s position is that he returned from Russia to meet with a Canadian and a Russian intelligence operative, and had intended to hand over a sealed pouch containing intelligence documents. When the handoff was compromised and the Canadian did not show for the Toronto meet, Vreeland opened the pouch and looked at some of the documents. Those documents, which he later had translated, gave specific warnings of the pending WTC attacks that were to take place nine months later. Again, on its face, since these documents were in a sealed intelligence pouch, this indicates that intelligence operatives were aware of the contents because they had placed them there originally.

According to both Vreeland and his lawyers, as reported in numerous interviews with this writer and other members of the FTW staff, immediately after his arrest Vreeland began making urgent attempts to alert both Canadian and U.S. intelligence officials of the coming danger.

After eight months of unsuccessful attempts to have either Canadian or U.S. intelligence services debrief him, Vreeland wrote a desperate, last-ditch warning in August. Through means he will not disclose, he acquired two high-tech Pilot water-based pens with light blue ink and used them to write the letter. The only pens permitted by Canadian jail authorities were oil-based, dark blue Bic pens.

Immediately after writing the letter, Vreeland notified his jailers that he had pens which might be considered contraband. A Sept. 17 letter from the Ministry of Correctional Services was entered as Exhibit “M” into court records on Oct. 7, along with Vreeland’s warning letter which had been opened on Sept. 14 and entered as Exhibit “N.” The letter states, “On August 13, 2001 inmate Vreeland’s corridor #2 was searched and as far as we know 2 blue ink pens were removed from his cell because they were considered contraband. There is no written record of them being placed in his personal property. He did submit a request to have them returned to him on August 14, 2001, but was denied.”

Since the ink on the warning letter, if tested, will match the ink in the confiscated pens, there can be no doubt that the letter was written a month before the attacks.

In an interview with this writer published on April 4, Vreeland clearly stated his belief that Al Qaeda operations had been completely penetrated by U.S. intelligence services. That belief is supported by a statement in his warning letter.

The statement, following a list of potential targets that included the WTC, the Pentagon and the White House said, “Let one happen, stop the rest.” Such a statement could only imply complete penetration or compromise of the terrorist cells perpetrating the attacks.

Compelling evidence continues to grow that Vreeland was, in fact, a U.S. Navy officer. On Jan. 10 from open court with a court reporter recording the conversation, his attorneys placed a speaker-phone call to the Pentagon. A Pentagon operator, after checking a back-up military database, confirmed Vreeland was a U.S. Navy officer and provided an office listing and a telephone number for his office. The primary database had been disabled, according to Vreeland, on 9-11. In addition, redacted and incomplete military records provided by the Pentagon to the Canadian courts indicate Vreeland had a service record of more than 1,200 pages.

This is difficult to reconcile with the U.S. Navy’s assertion that Vreeland was discharged as a Seaman Recruit after four months of unsatisfactory service in 1986.

No press entity has covered the Vreeland case more than FTW. This writer has traveled twice to Toronto, sat in on court proceedings, and retained the services of a Canadian correspondent to cover the case. I have interviewed Vreeland personally and conducted numerous interviews with his attorneys. Greta Knutzen, FTW’s Canadian correspondent, has also interviewed Vreeland and his attorneys, as well as Vreeland’s mother. Knutzen has attended every court proceeding since January, 2002. All of our previous reporting on the case can be located on the Internet at www.copvcia.com.

Mike Vreeland believes that if he is successfully extradited to the U.S., he will be assassinated. Previous press stories concerning Vreeland’s criminal past and a criminal arrest record fail to account for the fact that, as an undercover operative who targeted organized crime and terrorist organizations, a criminal record would have been necessary to give him credibility with organizations that have previously demonstrated capabilities to retrieve law enforcement records. They also fail to account for an Oct. 2, 1986 Los Angeles Times story that lists Vreeland as a non-criminal witness to a major cocaine bust carried out by LAPD investigators known to have contacts with USG intelligence services.

There is much about Vreeland’s past that is objectionable, questionable, or both. But even in a worst-case scenario, nothing in his past explains how he was able to write a detailed warning of the attacks before they occurred, and why the intelligence services of both Canada and the U.S. ignored attempts to warn them while both Vreeland and his attorneys were banging down their doors.

CONCLUSION

There is clear and substantial evidence to suggest that the Bush Administration had sufficient foreknowledge of the attacks of Sept. 11 to have prevented them. Rather than viewing each of the four listed areas as a separate piece of evidence, they should be considered as a body, in the exact same way exhibits presented to a jury in a criminal trial are viewed as a body. By viewing the evidence in this manner, an unavoidable conclusion is reached -- the USG knew 25 suicide hijackers during the week of Sept. 9 were going to use United and American airlines commercial planes, some of them likely originating in Boston, to attack the WTC and the Pentagon. A multitude of press stories and intelligence reports indicate the WTC would have been the primary target.

Given the financial commitments made during insider trading activity that occurred immediately before the attacks involving businesses that were directly damaged by the attacks, the threats had clearly moved from the realm of speculation to reality. Why else would mysterious investors have risked millions of dollars to purchase the put options? There is compelling evidence to suggest these trades were noted by the CIA and other USG entities.

Recently, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., has been widely criticized in the mainstream press for raising the need for a Congressional investigation to answer some of these obvious questions. This, in spite of the fact that popular reaction indicates a different sentiment. An opinion poll, conducted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution just a day after McKinney’s remarks received wide public attention in a Washington Post story dated April 12, was pulled after poll numbers showed that 51 percent of the respondents agreed with McKinney.

The people seem to recognize and agree with the opinion of former CIA officer Mike Osborne who says, “I think that the U.S. government needs to get behind McKinney’s questions because her agenda is truth and justice, and nothing else.”

© COPYRIGHT 2002, FTW Publications, www.copvcia.com

If that's not what you meant, fine. But your words and actions lead one to believe that the government's words on 9/11 should be trusted above everything else.

It went all the way to the President. If he had given it the go ahead, they would have implemented it. The military and the intelligence agencies wanted to do this plan, with a total disregard for the lives of American citizens.

And I lot of what I've posted here, no one has challenged. I just shut down two self-professed professional 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers on another forum with the same information. In over 9 months, not one single person on any forum has challenged the information in 9/11: Press for Truth. If you'll look at the people frothing at the mouth on such forums to go after anyone claiming a conspiracy, that's quite a remarkable track record.

The government lied. Get over it.

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

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hilter did in Germany was 'legal'" - Martin Luther King Jr., from a Birmingham jail, April 16, 1963.

And? What is your point. I don't recall hearing anyone say the steel itself was burning.

As to your second point, the jet fuel would have burned off in a matter of minutes. What was burning past that was the contents of the floors the plane struck. The fuel set entire floors on fire at once while also knocking off flame retardant designed to help the steel withstand the heat of a fire.

Michael Ruppert?!? He's about as bad as Alex Jones! Ruppert's schtick is to twist the truth until it says what he wants it to say regardless of what it really says.

Ever wonder why he doesn't provide links to back up his stories? Did you even bother to double check his claims to see if they held water?

Ever wonder if maybe... just maybe... some governments such as Russia might make some claims that turn out to be "stretching the truth"?

Ever wonder why these stories just "went away" after being sensationalized? Could it be because papers were misrepresenting what was really going on? Wow. That never happens, right? Like the BBC saying hijackers were alive after 9/11 only to find out they were told incorrectly.

So lets see how well these stories hold water, shall we?

Wow. Not exactly specific is it. No timeline. Two countries half way around the world from each other. How was this suppose to prevent 9/11 again?

The ONLY source for this appears to be Ruppert himself. Strange that there is absolutely zero evidence to go on. No names. No contacts. No transcrips of said conversation. Nothing.

That would be Moussaoui. Nothing he had or said would have prevented 9/11.

Hmmm..... Russians making themselves look good while making us look bad. Who can question it? Our government says they never received such calls. The Russian government can't produce evidence or transcripts of said calls. I chalk that one up to politics.

And this one, of course, turned out to be a complete farce. Turns out it was a non-descript text message that said nothing about New York and the NY office of Odigo wasn't even close to the WTC.

Source

So there you have it. Not a single specific verifiable claim of fore-knowledge.

Two trades done primarily by one trader and one group. One bought a whole bunch of United stock short (meaning he would make money if the stock went down), but turned around and bought a bunch of American stock. Now why would someone do that if they knew American planes would be used as well?

The American stock was bought short on the advice of a newsletter that people received over the weekend. It wasn't any one person and almost all of them who bought stock short were recipients of the newsletter.

Seriously.... check your stories before you post them. Ruppert is embarassing you!

Source

I expect no less from a "truther". Gross exaggerations and misrepresentations. Everything I believe happened on 9/11 has been vetted through numerous sources outside the government. I don't trust the government or politicians. I trust "truthers" even less.


Which plan did they want? Operation Northwoods was a mix of numerous different ideas, yet you seem to know exactly which one they wanted to do. How do you gain such insight into the minds of people long since retired? Which of course brings up the next point which is why do you accuse different people for the ideas of others?

Bragging about what you've done on other forums doesn't do much in this forum. I could brag about other forums, but that is just meaningless chest beating.

I don't go much for mockumentaries, which I consider the 9/11 press for truth video. If you wish to bring up specific points I will be glad to address them.

As for your claim the government lied, given your propensity for twisting other people's words, I would believe the government over you. Pretty sad considering I don't trust the government and already believe they are covering up parts of 9/11.

ROTFL. You're hilarious. Again, as I have to keep repeating, saying something is invalid, and proving it's invalid are two very different things. If there's something in "9/11: Press for Truth" that is false, THEN PROVE IT. Just saying so doesn't prove anything.

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

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hilter did in Germany was 'legal'" - Martin Luther King Jr., from a Birmingham jail, April 16, 1963.

I am going by the perfect track record of 9/11 crap "documentaries". All I ever hear from "truthers" is how THIS video somehow proves 9/11 was an inside job and that THIS time it is different. So far they've been full of lies and I've quit watching them because its the same stuff over and over again. If you think press for truth has some point you think is valid, post it and we will discuss it. I'm not going to watch your crap movie just to be disappointed once again. My time is more valuable doing other things like watching paint dry or truthers self destruct under their own faulty logic.

And to turn a phrase, saying something is valid and proving it is valid are two different things. All I've seen you do is praise the mockumentary. I've yet to see you post what you consider it's valid points. My guess would be because these "valid" points would quickly be exposed as the same tired old lies that we always get from the "truther" crowd.

The floors were concrete, between 3 to 5 inches. Concrete doesn't burn and if you had bothered to read at least part of the official report you would know the whole excuse as to why the building stayed on fire and burnt to the temperature it did was because the iron inside the metal beams lit on fire. The government report said it and you are rebuking their own evidence.

Could it be it went away because no one with a rational mind would listen to them? And what makes you think it went away?

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...08061583720429

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Are these people going away too?