Dear America, your 9/11 is our 24/7. Sincerely, Palestine

That has got be Quote of the Century. Short, concise, to the point. Here is where the quote is taken from Dear America, your 9/11 is our 24/7. Sincerely, Palestine

It says it all, doesn’t it?

It is a known fact that because of America, Israel exists. No America, no Israel. It is also known for a fact that America finances Israel’s economy and military – and wars, of course. Also known is that for every bullet Israel fires, every bomb it drops, every chemical weapon it uses on the Palestinians, the munitions and the weapons bear the American stamp.

This is the story of the Palestinian children, who suffered under the oppressive regime of the Zionist State of Israel, funded and sponsored by American’s taxes.

Children tell their stories best. They are innocent. They do not know how to lie. They tell as it is. Here are some drawings by Palestinian children as how they see life as. The images speaks a thousand words.
A Child’s View from Gaza

Here are actual photos of the atrocities Gazan children suffer under the oppressive Zionist Regime, made in America. Warning – very graphic. PHOTO GALLERY OF GAZA’S MARTYRED CHILDREN

So while the mass media forces us all to remember the tragic event 10 years ago about 911, why have they forgotten the tragic events that has been happening 24/7 to the Palestinians, the last more than 40 years since 1967, funded by America?

America’s 9/11 is Palestine’s 24/7. Very well said.

Pentagon’s shameless disrespect for 911/war victims and false glorification of heroes that never were

Exactly 10 years ago, two planes were hijacked and rammed into the twin towers of WTC, NY. Over 3000 innocent lives perished. Since then, instead of mourning for the dead, Pentagon has capitalized this incident to justify killings of more innocents.

As if that is not enough, The Pentagon uses this tragic incident to fabricate Hollywood style heroics of their military personnel in the hope of garnering national fevour and pride, so as to gain support for their senseless oppressive wars overseas.

The Heroes that never were -

911 appears to be the all purpose reason for America’s wars around the world. Why invade Afghanistan? To fight terror. Why invade Iraq? To fight terror. Any objections, play the 911 card. Never mind that is akin to disrespecting the innocent victims of 911 themselves, because that card actually is playing on your emotions. Yes, talking about using the dead for your selfish agenda.

In addition, America’s military in an effort to whip up nationalism and support for its oppressive wars against others, will go to great lengths lying to the public about how their military men (and women) fought against the enemies.

Here is a list of three heroes that never were.

1. Pat Tillman

First on the list is Pat Tillman. I wrote an article on that last year – Pat Tillman – Is the US Govt covering up something?

When Tillman died in Afghanistan, it was first reported that he died a hero. It was reported he died in combat fighting enemies. His family received the silver star for that. As it turned out, it was later discovered that the Pentagon lied and he actually died due to friendly fire. No heroics involved.

Tillman’s story took a turn for the worse when it was later discovered that he might have been killed because of his anti-war stance when he was in Afghanistan. He was to have met Noam Chomsky, a globally well known anti-war lobbyist. Tillman was a football star. And the Pentagon could not have a Tillman, a high profile football star meeting up with a high profile anti-war campaigner making world news.

In the end The Pentagon was caught lying to the world that Pat Tillman, an American soldier, was an American hero fighting terrorists to free America.

The Tillman story was made into a movie. This is the trailer.
The Tillman Story (2010): Trailer [HD]

2. Jessica Lynch

Second on the list is Jessica Lynch. Not as dramatic as Tillman, but the same trademark lies from the Pentagon is apparent. The lies that this soldier was a hero, fighting the enemies to her last bullet in her rifle.

The lies also included telling the world how a daring rescue was made. The world was made to believe that special forces were sent to rescue Private Lynch and they risked their lives completing their mission.

That pack of lies fell like a pyramid of stacked cards, when Jessica herself spoke up and said that she didn’t fight to the last bullet (heck, she didn’t fire a single shot but cowered under a hail of bullets!), was well treated by Iraqi hospital staff, and that when the “special forces” arrived at the hospital, there was no resistance or for that matter, enemies fighting the forces.

See links below:
The Big Lie Of Jessica Lynch
JESSICA LYNCH Media Myth-Making in the Iraq War

So what’s all this false heroics the Pentagon tries to bull that never existed in the first place?

Pic from taken: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4580540/image/41606996-jessica-lynch

Like Tillman, Lynch was made into a hero by the Pentagon in the hope of firing up Nationalism among Americans, so that they could get support from Americans for the wars overseas.

3. Heather Penny

Say, this name’s new. We get to hear this played up loud by the Pentagon only after 10 years.

F-16 pilot was ready to ram hijacked plane on 9/11

An F-16 pilot scrambled on 9/11 to prevent another attack on the US capital says she was prepared to ram her plane into a hijacked aircraft – as there was no time to arm her plane with missiles.

Amid fears another hijacked airliner was barrelling towards Washington, Major Heather Penney, then a lieutenant in the Washington DC National Guard, was one of two pilots ordered to take off without delay, she said in a recent interview.

A story about a fighter pilot willing sacrifice her life to save the situation? Why wasn’t this story told 10 years ago? The Pentagon needs to whip up tales of heroism of their military personnel?

They failed badly and were exposed when they did that to Tillman and Lynch. You believe this story now?

Shouldn’t we mourn for the dead instead?

It seems that the Pentagon is obsessed with Hollywood style heroes. So they make up stories that never were, and gave you heroes that never were too. But in doing so, have they not shown disrespect for the 3000 over victims of 911 who perished?

The last thing we need is to have lies from the Pentagon to dramatize the events of 911 making men (and women) who were ordered to fight in this “war on terror”, as heroes when they never were.

It looks like the 3000 lives lost at WTC have been cheapened by some Hollywood crazed people at the Pentagon.

Lastly, if the 3000 dead at WTC is tragic, what about the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost in Afghanistan and Iraq the last ten years?

Shouldn’t these innocents be accorded the respect they are due too?

Stop the lies. Stop disrespecting the dead.

911 10th Annivesary: Remembering the Lies (Part 3)

This is the third and last part of the series of my 911 10th Anniversary Remembering the Lies. In Part 1, we looked at how it was discussed at the 105th Congress, a plan to invade Afghanistan, way before the 911 Attacks itself. In Part 2, we took a look at how high volumes of put options of American Airlines and United Airlines, the two carriers whose planes were hijacked were purchased, indicating foreknowledge.

In this post, we will take a look at how the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes before its actual collapse. WTC7 was not hit by any of the two hijacked planes. How did the BBC know it was about to collapse?

ENHANCED VERSION: News Reports WTC7 Fell Before It Happens!

An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of more 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. How did the BBC know that it was going to collapse? And why did they report the collapse when it is clearly standing in the background?

So how did Jane Standley (the news reporter above) reported the collapse of WTC7, even as that building was still standing upright, right behind her? Read the pre-written script 20 mins too early, Ms Standley?

Countering Criticisms -

It looks like the BBC got caught flat footed here. They got caught with their pants down. Some critics say that the image behind Jane Standley was a screen rather than a window from a building that overlooks NY City. I seriously doubt that because:

1. Take a look at the video above again. At the 0:40 min mark, Ms Standley says “downtown in New York behind me“.

2. The BBC itself, when it tried to explain away this incident, DID NOT say that the image behind Ms Standley was a screen. See BBC’s explanation below.

9/11 – The Jane Standley / BBC WTC7 Incident Explained

Note that BBC blames Reuters for the “misreport”. BBC claims that it was fed wrongly by Reuters.

Stupid reply from BBC, which places blame on Reuters, and at the same time, confirms that 911 skeptics are right – ie it was truly reported that the WTC7 collapsed before its actual collapse.

Now please answer this question skeptics have been asking.

How was it reported that WTC7 collapsed before its actual collapse? Doesn’t this indicate foreknowledge?

And yep, BBC never said that the image behind Ms Standley was a screen image. So it was a window that truly showed the city of New York on 11 Sep 20001, live and in real time.

FBI and CIA screw this up again -

Like what I have explained in Part 2, where FBI, CIA and other anti-terror agencies screwed up, not following up the lead on the high volumes of put options purchase of AA and UA days before 911, they screw this one up too.

Obviously this incident, like the high volume put purchase options, indicates foreknowledge on the part of some parties. So why don’t these anti-terror agencies follow up on this incriminating lead?

Summary of Points -

- BBC’s Jane Standley reports the collapse of WTC7 20 mins before its actual collapse.

- BBC tries to explain that by saying it got that news from Reuters. Washes hands.

- However, in doing so, BBC confirms that it reported that WTC7 had collapsed before its actual collapse!

- In spite of indication of foreknowledge of some parties, anti-terror agencies did not follow up on this incriminating lead.

My Concluding Words -

As mentioned in Part 1, terror must not be condoned. However, what also must not be condoned is the justification of killing innocents in the name of “war on terror”.

It has been 10 years since the WTC Attacks. Osama, the alleged mastermind is dead. Saddam, the guy who Bush claimed has Weapons of Mass Destruction is dead.

So why is America and its allies still fighting wars and killing innocents?

=======
Related Links

911 10th Annivesary: Remembering the Lies (Part 1)

911 10th Annivesary: Remembering the Lies (Part 2)

911 10th Annivesary: Remembering the Lies (Part 2)

In my previous post about the 10th Anniversary of 911, I mentioned how the invasion of Afghanistan was planned during 105th Congress meeting three years before the attacks of the WTC Twin Towers on 11 Sep 2001. 911 10th Annivesary: Remembering the Lies (Part 1)

In this post, we will look at how the FBI, CIA and other anti-terror agencies did not follow up incriminating leads on foreknowledge pertaining to the terror attacks.

One of the first reported incidents of anomaly after the Twin Tower Attacks was that there was an extraordinary high volume of purchase of put options on American Airlines (AA) and United Airlines (UA), the two carriers whose planes were hijacked, days prior to 11 Sep 2001. This indicates foreknowledge, as it appears the investors were ready to profit from the drop in stock prices of the two said counters.

Quick Intro to Options Trading -

An option is a derivative. It takes its price from an underlying stock. Unlike stocks that truly exist, options are synthetic (man-made). This means that while there are limited number of stocks, there is technically no limit on the number of options available to investors. The Exchange can create any number of options it wills. This is unlike stocks where if there are no sellers, the buyers cannot buy.

This characteristic of options, where the supply can be artificially created by the Exchange, supports my counter-argument why I feel that critics against this case of “high volume of put options purchase as indication of foreknowledge”, have got their argument wrong. More on that later.

Understanding Options can be quite technical. I won’t try to explain it here. You can read it yourself if you have the time here – Options Basics: Introduction

Putting things simply, you purchase a “call option”, if you expect the underlying stock price to rise in the near future. Conversely, you purchase a “put option” if you expect the underlying stock price to fall in the near future.

Days before 11 Sep 2001, put options for the underlying stocks of American Airlines and United Airlines, the two carriers whose planes were hijacked, were purchased in extraordinary high volumes. This indicates that the investors involved had intention to profit from the expected fall of the prices of the stocks for American Airlines and United Airlines, which was not known to the public – yet.

Questions that need to be asked -

- Who were the purchasers of these put options?

- How did they know that the prices of the two carriers will fall drastically?

- Why does not the FBI, CIA and other anti-terror agencies follow up on this incriminating lead?

One of the earliest reports that followed the WTC Attacks was the possibility of insider trading, when the above options were purchased in high volumes days before the attacks itself. Here is a summary of the options purchased.

Pre-9/11 Put Options on Companies Hurt by Attack Indicates Foreknowledge

Financial transactions in the days before the attack suggest that certain individuals used foreknowledge of the attack to reap huge profits. The evidence of insider trading includes:

Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack — United Airlines and American Airlines

Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack — Munich Re and the AXA Group

Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack — Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America

Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack — Raytheon

Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes

Note that reinsurance companies that were expected to payout insurance claims, as well as companies that were housed at WTC, also had high volumes of purchase of put options days before 11 Sep 2001, indicating the investors had prior knowledge.

Note – “unknown investors” refers to the undisclosed identities of the investors who profited from the WTC Attacks. Under the rules of the Exchange, you cannot buy options anonymously.

The Big Question is, why are investigators hiding their identities?

Countering Criticisms of the Foreknowledge Argument -

Critics are quick to argue that high volume purchases itself does not mean foreknowledge. While that may be true, I feel that such argument is weak because:

1. Why did these investors purchase put options of only AA and UA and not other airline counters? If there was reason to believe the airline industry was going to be hit economically, why were put options of other airline counters not bought?

2. If there was a reason to believe that AA and UA stocks would drop, why only put options of those underlying stocks were purchased in high volumes? Wouldn’t the news that caused the high volume purchases also cause the underlying stock prices themselves to fall drastically BEFORE 11 Sep 2001, because stockholders will also try to dump them? But the stock prices didn’t! (See the illustration above.)

3. Earlier, I mentioned that the options market is synthetic. I also said that this fact supports my counter argument against critics that the high volume put option purchases of AA and UA were indication of foreknowledge. Stocks, unlike options are limited. This means if there are no sellers, buyers can’t buy. Options can be created to fill ANY number of buyers if the Exchange so wishes. What it does is to make the options more expensive to buy, using its complex price formula. In spite of this, some investors were still willing to pay the overpriced options. This means that the volume of put options purchased was truly a reflection that the investors who purchased those options then did believe the stock prices of AA and UA would fall, and it was not just a “market reaction”. If it were market reaction, stock prices of AA and UA themselves would fall drastically (before 11 Sep 2001) because now that would be a case of more sellers than buyers, unlike options. So why the anomaly?

4. Other affected non-airline counters that had high purchase of put options also indicated foreknowledge. They were re-insurance companies and companies that had offices housed at the WTC.

Critics who are of the view that there were market reasons for investors to buy put options of AA and UA in high volumes a few days prior to 911, have failed to address the above issues.

FBI and CIA did not follow up on this incriminating lead -

Perhaps the most astonishing thing is that the FBI, CIA and other anti-terror agencies did not take up this very incriminating lead. Even if you were to argue that the purchase of the put options were not out of the ordinary, surely it warrants an investigation?

You can’t buy options from the Exchange anonymously. That means it would super easy for investigators to find out who purchased those options in huge numbers. So why didn’t investigators follow it up? Where are the results of the reports of the investigation? Why the hush hush?

Summary -

- Put options of AA and UA were purchased in extraordinary high volumes days before 11 Sep 2001. This indicates foreknowledge and the investors were prepared to profit from the disaster.

- The anti-terror agencies did not follow up with this very incriminating lead, or if they did, kept its investigations under wraps, away from the public. Why?

- Critics who claim that the purchases were not out of the ordinary fail to explain that if the put option purchases were expected because of market news, why didn’t the underlying stock prices themselves fall in tandem with the high volume of put option purchases, a few days prior to 11 Sep 2001.

Conclusion -

10 years after the WTC Attacks of 911, the public has still yet to get a full report of the investigation. All we get are justification for the US to invade, pillage and usurp land of others.

The main agenda of the “war on terror” is nothing but OIL. But if the US said that it needs to invade lands of other because of OIL, it would get no support. So the US needs a justification for that.

911 fits into that jigsaw perfectly.

Next up in Part 3 – BBC reports the collapse of WTC7 before its actual collapse. Looks like someone read the scripted news a little too early. Oops! More signs of foreknowledge?