---------------
You are OK with the one liners, but I don't see you addressing the points in my post. Why do you avoid any substantive discussion of what I have presented? Do you dispute the information or will you continue to offer insults and cliches?

-------------------
As I have said in previous posts, if enough of the American public wakes up and realizes that it has been lied to, and let's our lawmakers know that we are aware of what they are party to, then perhaps we can avoid the next 9-11.

Alternatively, we can sit back, believe what they want us to believe, and be led around like a bunch of sheeple. Is that what you would prefer?

---------------------
Rivers, - Other than using the word "Bullshit" quite a bit, you very conveniently avoid the issue of what the police and firemen who were actually on the scene actually heard, saw, and testified to in their statements. Are you saying that these people are full of "Bullshit", and that you, who presumably were not even at the site, are the source of Truth, Justice, and the American way.

You can throw out the term "Truther Conspiracy B S" all you like, but what do you offer in place of eye witness testimony. Nothing but your belief and personal opinion.... which is based upon.....what?

The official account of the events of September 11, 2001, has been used:

*to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have resulted in the deaths of over a million people; [1]

*to authorize torture, military tribunals, and extraordinary rendition; and

*to suspend freedoms guaranteed by the American Constitution such as habeas corpus in the USA, and similar freedoms in Canada, the UK, and other countries.

The official claims regarding 9/11 are contradicted by facts that have been validated by a scientific consensus process, and which include the following points of “best evidence”.

Today, Point #5 will be presented. Over the course of the next 43 days I will post the balance of each successive point for your consideration.
--------------------------

The Official Account

NIST wrote as if no one – including members of the Fire Department of New York – gave evidence of explosions in the Twin Towers. [1]

The Best Evidence

Over 100 of the roughly 500 members of the FDNY who were at the site that day reported [2] what they described as explosions in the Twin Towers. Similar reports [3] were given by journalists, police officers, and WTC employees.


References for Point 5

[1] NIST, “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” August 30, 2006 (8/6/2006), Question 2.

[2] Graeme MacQueen, “118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 2, August 2006, 47-106.

[3] Reports by journalists, police officers, WTC employees are summarized here: David Ray Griffin, “Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories,” 911Truth.org, January 18, 2006.

________________

Why is the public so unwilling to listen to and consider the testimony of eye witnesses such as police and firemen actually at the site? And why was the City of NY and mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration so reluctant to share this testimony with the public that the NY Post had to file a suit along with the families of 9-11 victims to obtain it?

The following is a brief portion from an article by David Ray Griffin http://www.911truth.org/explosive-testimony-revelations-twin-towers-in-911-oral-histories/

Multiple Explosions

Some of the testimonies suggested that more than one explosion occurred in one tower or the other. FDNY Captain Dennis Tardio, speaking of the south tower, said: “I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom.”10

In June of 2002, NBC television played segments from tapes recorded on 9/11. One segment contained the following exchange, which involved firefighters in the south tower:

Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we’ve just had another explosion. Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we’ve had additional explosion. Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.11

Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, after entering the north tower lobby and seeing elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with debris, asked himself, “how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above”? After he reached the 24th floor, he and another fireman “heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.” After they pried themselves out of the elevator, “another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I’m thinking, “Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!”12

Multiple explosions were also reported by Teresa Veliz, who worked for a software development company in the north tower. She was on the 47th floor, she reported, when suddenly “the whole building shook. . . . [Shortly thereafter] the building shook again, this time even more violently.” Then, while Veliz was making her way downstairs and outside: “There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn’t know where to run.”13

Steve Evans, a New York-based correspondent for the BBC, said: “I was at the base of the second tower . . . that was hit. . . . There was an explosion. . . . The base of the building shook. . . . [T]hen there was a series of explosions.”14

Sue Keane, an officer in the New Jersey Fire Police Department who was previously a sergeant in the U.S. Army, said in her account of the onset of the collapse of the south tower: “[I]t sounded like bombs going off. That’s when the explosions happened. . . . I knew something was going to happen. . . . It started to get dark, then all of a sudden there was this massive explosion.” Then, discussing her experiences during the collapse of the north tower, she said: “[There was] another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs. . . . I can’t tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and threw me. . . . There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street.”15

Wall Street Journal reporter John Bussey, describing his observation of the collapse of the south tower from the ninth floor of the WSJ office building, said: “I . . . looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor. . . . One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces.”16

Another Wall Street Journal reporter said that after seeing what appeared to be “individual floors, one after the other exploding outward,” he thought: “‘My God, they’re going to bring the building down.’ And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES. . . . I saw the explosions.”17

A similar perception was reported by Beth Fertig of WNYC Radio, who said: “It just descended like a timed explosion–like when they are deliberately bringing a building down. . . . It was coming down so perfectly that in one part of my brain I was thinking, ‘They got everyone out, and they’re bringing the building down because they have to.'”18

A more graphic testimony to this perception was provided on the film made by the Naudet brothers. In a clip from that film, one can watch two firemen describing their experiences to other firemen.

Fireman 1: “We made it outside, we made it about a block . . . .”

Fireman 2: “We made it at least two blocks and we started running.” He makes explosive sounds and then uses a chopping hand motion to emphasize his next point: “Floor by floor it started popping out . . . .”

Fireman 1: “It was as if they had detonated–as if they were planning to take down a building, boom boom boom boom boom . . . .”

Fireman 2: “All the way down. I was watching it and running. And then you just saw this cloud of shit chasing you down.”19

As these illustrations show, quite impressive testimony to the occurrence of explosions in the Twin Towers existed even prior to the release of the oral histories. As we will see, however, these oral histories have made the testimony much more impressive, qualitatively as well as quantitatively. The cumulative testimony now points even more clearly than before not simply to explosions but to controlled demolition.

[quote=Blade_Runner]The 9/11 Consensus Points

Yeah, that's how it's done. Put together a panel of 25 truthers, including a couple of lawyers, a Swiss historian, an Italian journalist, a professor of religious studies, a professor of religious philosophy, an Italian screenwriter/film
-------------------
Did you read the full report by Stephen Jones, et al as well as the NIST NCSTAR 1 and RJ Lee Group, WTC Dust Signature Report? Apparently not.

Let me briefly summarize for you these findings, and you show me how the official version of 9-11 could possibly be correct.

It has been established that maximum temperature from a "diverse flame" fire from jet fuel and other combustibles such as what occurred at the WTC was 1,000 degrees C. It was most probably much less than that due to oxygen starvation evidenced by the black smoke emerging from the towers.

Nonetheless, even if we assume the dubious assumption of a 1,000 degree temperature, how do you account for the
melted aluminosilicates which require 1,450 C, melted iron spheres requiring 1,538 C, melted iron (lll) oxide spheres requiring 1,565 C, vaporized lead that condensed on the surface of mineral wool that required 1,740 C, melted molybdenum (spherule formation) requiring 2,623 C, and vaporized aluminosilicates requiring 2,760 C.

If you read the reports, you would find that these dust samples were taken 4-5 blocks away from the WTC site, 4 days after the destruction, and before any cleanup efforts were begun. That eliminated any possibility of contamination from the cleanup effort that would have involved torches.

I will not get caught up in the argument whether thermite or thermate was the causative agent that your PhD chemist Frank Greening was disputing with Stephen Jones.

The basic fact of the matter is that there was a heat source far, far in excess of anything possible by normal combustion of jet fuel and office furniture at the WTC. Unless or until these scientific facts can be satisfactorily explained, you cannot rationally accept the 9-11 Commission Report.

In support of this statement, NIST reports: "These [steel] microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600°C for any significant time [18]. In a report entitled “Fire Safety in High-rise Buildings, Lessons Learned from the WTC,” a team of fire experts notes: Standard structural fire testing exposes elements to about 900 °C in 1 hour and up to 1,100 °C by 4 hours. The expectation of these standard tests could well be defined as providing a worst-case fire scenario [19]."

All of these estimates for the WTC fires (including burning jet fuel) put the temperature well below the
melting point of steel, about 1,500 °C [17].

[quote=Rivers]I tell ya. it's a conspiracy! Little green men from Krypton did it![/quote
--------------
If this wasn't so serious.....it would be funny.

-----------
The high speed ejection of building parts occurred when the building was collapsing, not when the planes hit an hour earlier.

Also read point 3 from yesterday.

Democrats fight voter ID laws tooth and nail while telling us there’s no such thing as voter fraud. Naturally, anyone who disagrees is a racist bigot who wants to disenfranchise minorities from voting. But, the American Mirror reported, Democrats not only required voter ID to participate in the election of their new chairman, they verified those IDs in order to prevent — wait for it — voter fraud.

According to the American Mirror:

The Democratic National Committee was planning to use electronic “clickers” to cast ballots for its next leader, but that plan was scrapped moments before the vote was scheduled to begin.

“Pursuant to the rules of procedure, the chair has the discretion as to the voting mechanism,” chairwoman Donna Brazile said.

“And it’s my determination, based on the system that we tested this morning, that I would like to use paper ballots. And I’ll tell you why.

“We have to make sure that we can not just count the ballots but verify every name and signature,” Brazile said as party members began applauding. “And I want to make sure that at the conclusion of all of our votes, that you, the members of this party, will be able to review those ballots.”

OK.... Let me see.... It' OK to REQUIRE and VERIFY a voters's ID to elect the new DNC chairperson..... but it's not OK to follow this procedure to elect a President! Can you guess the one word that best describes this?

http://minutemennews.com/guess-dnc-voting-chairman-verified-voter-ids/

The official account of the events of September 11, 2001, has been used:

*to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have resulted in the deaths of over a million people; [1]

*to authorize torture, military tribunals, and extraordinary rendition; and

*to suspend freedoms guaranteed by the American Constitution such as habeas corpus in the USA, and similar freedoms in Canada, the UK, and other countries.

The official claims regarding 9/11 are contradicted by facts that have been validated by a scientific consensus process, and which include the following points of “best evidence”.

Today, Point #4 will be presented. Over the course of the next 44 days I will post the balance of each successive point for your consideration.
-------------------

The Official Account

The Twin Towers were destroyed by three and only three causes: the impacts of the airliners, the resulting fires, and gravity. [1]

The Best Evidence

During the destruction of the Twin Towers, huge sections of the perimeter steel columns, weighing many tons, were ejected horizontally as far as 500 to 600 feet, as seen in multiple photographs [2] and maps. [3]

These high-speed ejections of heavy structural members cannot be explained by the fires, the pull of gravity, or the airplane impacts (which had occurred about an hour earlier).

Human bone fragments [4] approximately 1 cm long were found in abundance on the roof of the Deutsche Bank following the Towers’ destruction, which further points to the use of explosives. Pancaking or tamping of floors from above would tend to trap bodies, not hurl splintered bones over 500 feet horizontally.


References

[1] NIST NCSTAR 1, Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, September 2005, 144-45 (pdf: 194-5).

[2] The Scientists for 9/11 Truth website shows a photo of “Impaled Steel Columns at the 20th Floor of the World Financial Center Building 3 (WFC3).”

See also video one and video two showing horizontal ejections.

[3] In addition to WFC3 (American Express Building), the FEMA Report, “7. Peripheral Buildings”, shows that similar debris hit the Winter Gardens, 500-600 feet distant, and includes a map showing the location of these buildings.

[4] “Remains bring hope, frustration for 9/11 families,” USA Today, April 20, 2006.

Quite interesting reading. Thanks for the post.

The official account of the events of September 11, 2001, has been used:

*to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have resulted in the deaths of over a million people; [1]

*to authorize torture, military tribunals, and extraordinary rendition; and

*to suspend freedoms guaranteed by the American Constitution such as habeas corpus in the USA, and similar freedoms in Canada, the UK, and other countries.

The official claims regarding 9/11 are contradicted by facts that have been validated by a scientific consensus process, and which include the following points of “best evidence”.

Today, Point #3 will be presented. Over the course of the next 45 days I will post the balance of each successive point for your consideration.
-------------------

The Official Account
The Twin Towers were brought down by airplane impacts, jet fuel, and office fires. [1]


The Best Evidence
Experience, based on physical observation and scientific knowledge, shows that office fires, even with the aid of jet fuel, could not have reached temperatures greater than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 degrees Celsius).

But multiple scientific reports [2] show that metals in the Twin Towers melted. These metals included steel, iron, and molybdenum – which normally do not melt until they reach 2,700°F (1482°C), 2,800°F (1538°C), and 4,753°F (2,623°C), respectively


References for Point 3

[1] NIST NCSTAR 1, Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, September 2005, p. 15. Regarding airplane impacts, see pp. 150-51; Jet fuel, pp. 24, 42; Fires, pp. 91, 127, 183.

[2] RJ Lee Group, “WTC Dust Signature Report: Composition and Morphology,” December 2003, p. 21.
RJ Lee Group, “Expert Report: WTC Dust Signature,” May 2004, p. 12.

Heather A. Lowers and Gregory P. Meeker, US Geological Survey, US Department of the Interior, “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust,” 2005.

Steven E. Jones et al., “Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction,” Journal of 9/11 Studies 19 (January 2008).

For discussion and summary, see David Ray Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7, pp. 39-44.
--------------------------

In my mind, this is perhaps one of the most important elements that disproves the official account of the 9-11 Commission Report.

I have attached the full report by Steven E. Jones et al, for those of you who 1) do not believe that there was molten steel, vaporized lead or aluminosilicates at the site, or 2) that the diffuse flames of jet fuel and building material could generate sufficient heat to cause the resultant molten steel, vaporized lead and aluminosilicates.

Here are a few key segments from the Steven Jones report:

4.2. Volatilized lead

The RJ Lee report notes “extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead
to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool [1].” Again, “metals were
vaporized at the WTC during the WTC Event and either deposited on WTC Dust or deposited directly onto
surfaces in the Building [1].” Where do the requisite high temperatures come from?
An additional characteristic of WTC Dust is the presence of coated particles and fibers. The coatings
vary in thickness from monolayers to finely-dispersed sub-micron sized particles. The coated particles
have been detected by low voltage back-scattered electron imaging, x-ray microprobe analysis, and
high resolution x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) as illustrated as an example in figure 3 and
figure 4. Figure 3 shows traces of lead compounds identified on the surfaces of mineral wool by XPS,
and the analysis of x-ray photoelectron spectra led to the identification of two peaks containing either
lead oxide or lead sulfate (figure 4). The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool
indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic
lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool [1].
The temperature required to volatilize/boil lead is 1,740 C or 3,164 F [8]. No explanation for the origin of
the indicated “extremely high temperatures during the collapse” is offered in the RJ Lee report.

4.4. Materials from WTC with a “Swiss-cheese appearance” corroborate high temperatures

Dust particles from the WTC collapse show a “Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and
evaporation,” as reported in the RJ Lee report:

Additionally, WTC Dust can be differentiated from other building dust on the basis of its unique
composition and morphology. WTC Dust Markers exhibit characteristics of particles that have
undergone high stress and high temperature. Asbestos in the WTC Dust was reduced to thin bundles
and fibrils as opposed to the complex particles found in a building having asbestos-containing surfacing
materials. Gypsum in the WTC Dust is finely pulverized to a degree not seen in other building debris.
Mineral wool fibers have a short and fractured nature that can be attributed to the catastrophic collapse.
Lead was present as ultra fine spherical particles. Some particles show evidence of being exposed to
a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open
porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation).
-Materials transformed by high temperature (burning). These transformed materials include: spherical
iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. These heat7 Extremely
high temperatures during the WTC destruction processed constituents are rarely, if ever, found together with mineral wool and gypsum in “typical” indoor dusts [1].

The RJ Lee report provides an image of a “vesicular alumino-silicate particle” which exemplifies the
“round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation”
(below, left). [1] The images below “show the difference between an angular non-porous non-heat affected
particle within a Background Building [right] and a porous WTC Dust silicate heat-affected particle [left]”.
It is not clear to us that boiling of aluminosilicate is needed to produce the observed porous structure;
melting and evaporation of some minor component may suffice. But if the “Swiss-cheese appearance” is
indeed a result of “boiling and evaporation” of the material as the report suggests [1], we note the boiling
temperature for aluminosilicate is approximately 2,760 °C [11].

The phrase “Swiss cheese appearance” was also used by a team from Worcester Polytechnic Institute led by
Prof. Jonathon Barnett in describing steel from WTC 7.

The significance of the work on a [steel] sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of
the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal. A oneinch
[steel] column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper
scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let
light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the firewise
professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes [12].

The researchers argue that a eutectic formed at approximately 1,000 °C in this steel sample from WTC 7:
A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot
corrosion attack on the steel… The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the
temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially
lower than would be expected for melting this steel [13].

However, to form a molten iron-oxygen-sulfur eutectic at about 1,000 °C would require a very high
concentration of sulfur, around 50 (mol. %) [14]. ]. The fact that sulfur evaporates at a low temperature, 445
°C, along with the very low levels of elemental sulfur in office buildings appears to preclude the possibility that
the eutectic could have formed as a result of a slow sulfidation process in the debris pile. In any case, the
authors admit that the severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 [WTC7] and 2 [Towers] are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified [13].

It is interesting that the FEMA report discussed the “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack
on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation” and called for further investigation, [13] – but the subsequent
NIST report [15] failed to address this evidence. Nor did NIST address the published observations of abundant
iron-rich spherules in the WTC dust [1, 2]. We find that these effects are important to understanding the events
of 9/11/2001 and should not be neglected.

4.5. Summary of Temperatures Required by the WTC Data

The formation of spherules in the dust implies the generation of materials somehow sprayed into the air so
that surface tension draws the molten droplets into near-spherical shapes. That shape is retained as the droplet
solidifies in the air. Spherules observed in the WTC dust include iron-rich, molybdenum-rich and silicate
varieties. The temperatures required to melt iron, silicates, and molybdenum, and to vaporize lead and
aluminosilicates (as discussed above) are summarized in table 1.

Table 1. Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required
Process and material °C °F

To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel 1,000 1,832

To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation) 1,450 2,652

To melt iron (spherule formation) 1,538 2,800

To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation) 1,565 2,849

To vaporize lead 1,740 3,164

To melt molybdenum (spherule formation) 2,623 4,753

To vaporize aluminosilicates 2,760 5,000

4.6 Maximum temperatures associated with the WTC fires

Finally, we consider the temperatures reached in normal building fires, jet-fuel fires and in the World Trade
Center buildings. Maximum temperatures due to fires in the WTC of around 1,000 C are argued by Thomas
Eagar:

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and
many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially
with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not
unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame,
and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but
flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within
the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames
generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature
increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to
melt steel at 1500 °C.

Extremely high temperatures during the WTC destruction
But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is
nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the
temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range. It is known that the
WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke [16].”
NIST provides a maximum gas temperature due to WTC fires of 1,000 °C:
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The
melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires
and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000
degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees
Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, figure 6-36)
[17].

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed
because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing
insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple
floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached
temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with
dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns[18].

In actual metallurgical analyses of WTC steel, NIST reports:
These [steel] microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600°C for any
significant time [18]. In a report entitled “Fire Safety in High-rise Buildings, Lessons Learned from the WTC,” a team of fire experts notes: Standard structural fire testing exposes elements to about 900 °C in 1 hour and up to 1,100 °C by 4 hours. The expectation of these standard tests could well be defined as providing a worst-case fire
scenario [19].

All of these estimates for the WTC fires (including burning jet fuel) put the temperature well below the
melting point of steel, about 1,500 °C [17].

Attached file:
(Download)

[quote=badbob85037]There was some guy on youtube saying 9/11 happened just like the government told us. I finally made a video to show just what it takes to believe what the government told us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGm6vcR2g-k If you believe the laws of science and nature you can't believe what our government told us and you can't have it both ways.
-------------------------
Great video BB 👍

badbob85037 wrote:
There was some guy on youtube saying 9/11 happened... (show quote)
--------
Points #3 through #12 will deal with the issue of fire, explosions, and molten metals.

The official account of the events of September 11, 2001, has been used:

*to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have resulted in the deaths of over a million people; [1]

*to authorize torture, military tribunals, and extraordinary rendition; and

*to suspend freedoms guaranteed by the American Constitution such as habeas corpus in the USA, and similar freedoms in Canada, the UK, and other countries.

The official claims regarding 9/11 are contradicted by facts that have been validated by a scientific consensus process, and which include the following points of “best evidence”.

Today, Point #2 will be presented. Over the course of the next 46 days I will post each successive point for your consideration.
----------

A Claim that there was No Insider Trading in Put Options before September 11, 2001

In the first month after 9/11, there was rather widespread commentary in the press that persons had made enormous profits from foreknowledge of the attacks. [1]
----------

The Official Account

In 2004, The 9/11 Commission Report wrote: “Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11” have been made, and there was “some unusual trading” involving “put options – investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price.” [2] However, the Commission said: “Exhaustive investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, FBI, and other agencies have uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions.” [3]

For example, “the volume of put options … surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American airlines on September 10,” and this was “highly suspicious trading on its face.” However, “further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connections with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.” [4]

The Best Evidence

There are three reasons to reject the 9/11 Commission’s claim that it refuted the belief that huge profits were gained through foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

First, the 9/11 Commission did not show that there was no insider trading based on foreknowledge about the 9/11 events, but simply asserted this.

Second, the Commission used a circular argument with regard to United Airlines: In stating that most of the United Airlines put options were purchased by an investor “with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda,” the Commission simply presupposed that 9/11 was planned and executed solely by al-Qaeda and that no one else had any advance knowledge of the attacks.

Third, econometricians – who use statistical analyses to produce objective results in economics – have published studies showing the occurrence of very unusual trades shortly before 9/11 that ensured high profits, thereby revealing high probabilities of insider trading.

For example, an analysis of the purchases of put options on United and American Airlines between the 5th and 10th of September, 2001, carried out by a University of Illinois professor of finance and published in a well-established journal, concluded that the evidence was “consistent with the terrorists or their associates having traded ahead of the September 11 attacks.” [5]

Another econometric study published in a well-respected journal concluded that “abnormal trading volumes … provide credible circumstantial evidence in support of the insider trading claim.” [6]

A more comprehensive study, by professors at the Swiss Finance Institute and the Swiss Banking Institute, [7] shows that 15 million dollars were likely obtained by insiders using put options for Boeing, Merrill Lynch, J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, and Bank of America stocks. [8]

These econometric investigations, which appeared in 2006, 2010, and 2011, have not been challenged in any professional or governmental responses.


References

[1] For example, the BBC one week after 9/11 stated: “The City watchdog, the Financial Services Authority, has launched an inquiry into unusual share price movements in London before last week’s atrocities. The [London] Times reports that the American authorities are investigating unusually large sales of shares in airlines and insurance companies. There are said to be suspicions that the shares were sold by people who knew about the impending attacks” (“Papers Salute New York Stock Exchange,” BBC News, 18 Tuesday September, 2001.

[2] The 9/11 Commission Report, 499 n. 130.

[3] Ibid., 172.

[4] Ibid., 499, n. 130.

[5] Allen M. Poteshman, “Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001,” Journal of Business, 79 (2006): 1703-26; (backup of pdf).

[6] Wing-Keung Wong, Howard E. Thompson, and Kweehong, Teh, “Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?” Multinational Finance Journal 15/1-2 (2011): 1-46, at 43.

[7] Marc Chesney, Remo Crameri, and Loriano Mancini, “Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Options Markets,” Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper, 7 September 2011.

[8] See Table 2 of Paul Zarembka, “Evidence of Insider Trading Before September 11th Re-examined,” International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, 8-11 September 2011, Ryerson University, Toronto.

Blade_Runner wrote:
I'll bet that I can debunk every freaking one of t... (show quote)
--------------
You are welcome to do so Blade-Runner.

I did not say that muslims were not involved in the 9-11 tragedy. Clearly most of the alleged perpetrators were from Saudi Arabia. I do not claim to know the truth behind the events of 9-11. But based upon eye witness testimony, scientific facts, timing of events, etc., it did not happen in the way that is outlined in the 9-11 Commission Report. That is not worth the paper it is written upon. It is lie, a fabrication.

It is not up to me to prove anything. I do not have an army of investigators, unlimited budget, subpoena power to interview witnesses, etc. But there is enough on the public record to convince any thinking and aware individual that 9-11 was a coverup.

So by all means, do your thing on the remaining 47 points.