The true smoking gun of 911

Although we conspiracy theorist have pointed out from day one why we feel the official story is a lie, there is a part of the official story that is a smoking gun so to speak:

One, the phone calls that Mayor Willie Brown and others got are part of the accepted official story, Pacifica Radio reported that call came from Condoleeza Rice.
On top of that there are countless people who got warned and then add to that the canceled flights from some pentagon officials, they had flights scheduled for 9/11/01 and canceled them.

Then there are the stocks options taken out on the two airlines and many businesses inside of the WTC, that also is a part of the official story why is no one following up on this? Why did we hear very little about this from the beginning, though it was talked about, the news people just totally dropped the story on the calls and the stock put options, a stock trade that bets that the value of a company's shares will decrease, clealy this says many people knew and did nothing and is a part of the official story but no one seems to be following up on it. Who made money off of this? Anybody got a list? I know there has got to be one somewheres.

Well i do know that Seth McFarlane (Creator of "Family Guy" and "American Dad") had a flight booked on one of the planes (i dont remember which one) but 'missed' it because his Travel Agent gave him the wrong time.

I didn't know any Pentagon employee's had flights on 9/11 and had them cancelled, i think we really need to start some kind of online-database and get ANYONE that missed a flight on 9/11 to come together. I wonder how many there are??

But this truly could be a very good smoking gun, we just need some evidence of it.

Originally posted by goose why is no one following up on this?

I don't know.


Why aren't you following up on this?

Any links?

Evidence?

Anything?

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

In my opinion, the above site has one of the best collections of 9/11 materials available.

Oh gosh I am sorry you are right I should have put some links on here to back it up.
Ok, Pacifica Radio reported that Condoleeza Rice was who warned Mayor Willie Brown not to fly on September 11, 2001 or 911.
Pacifica Radio is not some set of weird radio stations, they are highly respected for their journalism.

pacificaradioarchives.org...
Pacifica Radio and its stations and producers have won numerous awards over the years. In fact, Pacifica has won every major broadcast award multiple times, including the most prestigious: the Peabody, the Armstrong, among others.

Here is a link telling about Brown getting a warning, look to the immediate side of the article in David Irving comments where you see that Pacifica radio reported this. www.fpp.co.uk...

Here is a link telling about Newsweek reporting that many top pentagon officials canceled their own flight plans nd it also tells about others.
911research.wtc7.net...

also the stock options, it is a huge clue that many people knew and the stock options are also part of the official story. I recall seeing stories about the stock options and the warnings early on then they were just dropped and has not been followed up on by the mainstream media.

www.hereinreality.com...
FTW - October 9, 2001 – Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the “put options” on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency.

www.americanfreepress.net...

Why would Willie Brown have been "warned" when he was in no danger? He wasn't scheduled to take off until after the attacks had been completed.

And if Brown did receive a warning from someone as senior as Rice, then why did he ignore it and decide to fly anyway?

Brown didn't think about [the warning] again until he was up, dressed and waiting for his ride to the airport for an 8 a.m. flight to New York...
www.sfgate.com.../chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL

As for the Pentagon officials, if they didn't travel then, well, wouldn't they probably be in the Pentagon? And maybe even one or more of them was killed? If they had "foreknowledge" then that's not exactly the best way to make use of it.

[edit on 2-11-2005 by ashmok]

Actually all the things you are questioning are NOT part of our conspiracy theories they are part of the accepted official story, the warnings were reported by Brown and the flight cancellations were reported by Newsweek. I think it would be interesting to know whether these people at the pentagon who received warnings were there that day. I'm betting NO they were not but I can't at this time confirm that.

Why Brown ignored the warnings I do not know but the fact that he got a warning is important and as a I said Pacifica Radio reported Condoleeza Rice was who warned him. Where Pacifica Radio got that information I do not know.

You are also questioning why he got a warning when his flight was scheduled for 8am pacific time after the attacks, well maybe the person who warned him did not know his flight schedule or was confused on whether the time reported to them on his flight schedule was eastern or pacific and just wanted to make sure he was safe.

Here is an interesting link that shows the newsweek and the msnbc report and is very short, well organized, not a ton of stuff to sift through.
www.grandtheftcountry.com...

[edit on 2-11-2005 by goose]

[edit on 2-11-2005 by goose]

Heh. You edited your original post just in time.

Originally posted by goose
Actually all the things you are questioning are not part of our conspiracy theories they are part of the accepted official story... Why Brown ignored the warnings I do not know but the fact that he got a warning is important...

Sure, I accept that some Pentagon officials cancelled their travel plans. But as I said, if that left them in the Pentagon then that's evidence against foreknowledge, not in support of it.

And whoever "warned" Brown a) clearly didn't know what was going to happen because he was in no danger, and b) didn't do a very good job because was going to fly anyway. Again, no evidence of foreknowledge.

As to the source of his warning, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that Rice told him, only repeated allegations. What we do know is that general travel warnings were circulating at the time, and (for instance) George Schultz in San Francisco received one on the same day that Willie Brown got his call ( www.sfgate.com.../chronicle/archive/2001/09/14/MN92245.DTL&type=printable ). This was actually about travel abroad, and so not anything specific about 9/11, and my guess would be that Brown's warning was as a result of the same memo.

[edit on 2-11-2005 by ashmok]

Nope no warning in recent days by airport officials excet for the chosen few who got those mysterious calls.
www.fpp.co.uk... McCarron, assistant deputy director at SFO [airport], said the Federal Aviation Administration "routinely" issues security notices about possible threats.

He said two or three such notices have been received in the past couple of months, but none in recent days.

Also take note of this
911research.wtc7.net...
Pentagon
125 people were killed in a building with 20,000 people.
The portion of the Pentagon that was attacked, the West Block, was in the process of being renovated, and so was at low occupancy.
No high-level Pentagon officials were killed in the attack.

I also talked to someone who said the jets went up after the attack at the pentagon, why wait until then we all knew we were under attack a long time before the pentagon got hit. Heck they were even reporting on tv the planes were heading for the capitol

Also from same website)
The Pentagon -- the heart of the military establishment of the world's greatest super-power -- was hit after ample warning without being protected by any defensive action.
The 9:37 strike was well over an hour after the first signs of a hijacking and 34 minutes after the South Tower strike confirmed that an attack was underway.
The Pentagon is within 11 miles of Andrews Air Force Base, which apparently had two combat-ready fighter wings on 9/11/01.
The attack plane was monitored on radar as it approached the capital.

[edit on 2-11-2005 by goose]

Originally posted by goose
the Federal Aviation Administration "routinely" issues security notices about possible threats.

He said two or three such notices have been received in the past couple of months, but none in recent days.

That's because this wasn't an FAA warning, it came from the State Department ( www.sfgate.com.../chronicle/archive/2001/09/14/MN92245.DTL&type=printable ). Schultz got it in San Francisco, the same day that Brown got his "warning", so it seems likely that this memo was the cause.

Originally posted by ashmok

Originally posted by goose
the Federal Aviation Administration "routinely" issues security notices about possible threats.

He said two or three such notices have been received in the past couple of months, but none in recent days.

That's because this wasn't an FAA warning, it came from the State Department ( www.sfgate.com.../chronicle/archive/2001/09/14/MN92245.DTL&type=printable ). Schultz got it in San Francisco, the same day that Brown got his "warning", so it seems likely that this memo was the cause.

I have to ask, are you assuming that is the case or do you have proof of what type of warning Brown received? So far, I can find no proof that is the kind of warning he received. It would seem reasonable that if this is the type of warning he received, it would be reported as such instead of this vague I got a warning stuff.

[edit on 2-11-2005 by goose]

Originally posted by goose
I have to ask, are you assuming that is the case or do you have proof of what type of warning Brown received? So far, I can find no proof that is the kind of warning he received. It would seem reasonable that if this is the type of warning he received, it would be reported as such instead of this vague I got a warning stuff.

I'm just assuming, but it makes sense. We know from Schultz that this warning was circulating in San Francisco on the day Brown was called, so it's a reasonable guess that this was the cause. Certainly more reasonable than Rice warning him when he was in no danger, then him ignoring her and planning to fly anyway.

[edit on 2-11-2005 by ashmok]

True it does make sense, but then what does not make sense is that the good Mayor has not reported that is what type of warning he got. Condoleeza Rice has not confronted Pacifica Radio that I know of on their report that she was who warned him, this is a serious charge. And given that one would expect that she would demand a statement from them and an apology. No one has come forth with proof that what you say make sense is true and I agree it does but no one is coming forth confirming it. And the fact that they have not does not make sense at all, does it?

Here is a list of warnings the American government got that 911 was going to happen, scary stuff, even the Brits tried to warn us.
www.buzzflash.com...

Originally posted by goose
Condoleeza Rice has not confronted Pacifica Radio that I know of on their report that she was who warned him, this is a serious charge. And given that one would expect that she would demand a statement from them and an apology.

Where's the evidence that Pacifica Radio ever said this? Someone said they did, lots of other sites copied that claim, but I've never seen any details, any quotes, any audio clips, anything that would pin it down. I see no reference in the Pacifica Radio archives, either www.pacificaradioarchives.org... Does anyone have any references with more detail than "Pacifica Radio reported..."?

No, I think this is an "anomaly too far". To say it was an unusual call from someone with knowledge of 911 raises more questions than answers, like why he ignored it. The simpler explanation makes more sense to me. Anyway, I'm repeating myself & this isn't the most interesting of claims anyway, so it's probably best if I stop talking about it here.

Mod Edit: Fixed Link.

[edit on 2/11/2005 by Mirthful Me]

I found Pacifica Radio and they have not got their archives up that far back it shows they are going to be putting it all online soon. Do you really think that Pacifica Radio is going to allow all these people to put this on their websites that they Pacifica Radio reported this, if they did not? I don't think so these people value their reputation (as they should) too much. It is all over the internet they got to be aware of it.

As for his ignoring the warning, that is not really all that important, there is a time difference involved the person who did the warning might not have had the luxury of knowing whether the 8 am was their est or his pacifc time and might not have wanted to take a chance on being wrong.

What about the stocks, is that just another anomoly? Everyone from the Times to the Wall Street Journal has reported on it? Someone knew and it was not just the terrorist.
www.scoop.co.nz...


[edit on 3-11-2005 by goose]

Originally posted by goose
As for his ignoring the warning, that is not really all that important...

It shows the person calling didn't have detailed knowledge of 9/11. It shows the call wasn't out of the ordinary because Brown paid no attention to it. You can build a complicated sequence of "maybes" and "mights" to try and explain that, but there's no evidence for any of them, and I think my simpler explanation is more likely to be correct.

What about the stocks, is that just another anomoly?

They may not have required specific foreknowledge of 9/11, either -- not the airline stocks, anyway. They were falling long before 9/11, making them a natural short. And a much-quoted Mike Ruppert article that says there was "no news" to justify selling AMR on 10th September is simply false. The trading day before American had annouced a) their 3rd quarter loss would be bigger than the 2nd, and b) they'd also make a significant loss in Q4, and c) they were facing poor economic conditions and falling demand. An analyst said, that afternoon, that airline shares probably wouldn't recover until at least the next year, making them a natural choice to sell ( www.911myths.com... )

If you were a smart investor and realised this in advance, you might also have picked UAL as the weaker airline (which of course it was) and short-sold them.

The others I don't know about, and there were fairly wild stories about "billions" involved in sales all over the world, and lots of different investigations into them. But if there was anything in these stories, then why have none of the investigations revealed anything of interest? Bush might be able to cover up something in the US, but I don't think he's going to have much influence over Germany ( www.sfgate.com.../chronicle/archive/2001/09/18/MN63703.DTL ).

[edit on 3-11-2005 by ashmok]

The call, well do you really think that the person calling is going to give out details of the future 911 attack other than, don't fly tomorrow?

The stocks that were taken out on the investment companies that had their main offices in the WTC was certainly not due to an expected loss. This type of trading that week was up 6 times more than usual. And usually when this type of thing happens the FBI pays attention, it is a warning of sorts that something is up.

www.scoop.co.nz...

On the heels of alleged CIA involvement in public stock trading and use of sensitive prior knowledge of last fall’s attacks, 13 days ago on May 22, FBI agents Jeffrey A. Royer and Lynn Wingate were charged with racketeering conspiracy, securities fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. Royer was also charged with extortion, according to an examination of an unsealed federal indictment: United States vs. Elgindy, Royer, Wingate, Cleveland, and Peters, filed in New York District Court by Alan Vinegard, United States Attorney -- all of which clouds either open or secret congressional probes of pre-attack insider trading profits.

Vinegard’s news release said “the allegations reveal a shocking partnership between an experienced stock manipulator and law enforcement agents, undertaken for their illicit personal financial gain.” Moreover, Royer and Wingate allegedly used the FBI’s Automated Case Support database to actually monitor the investigation, passing confidential information about the investigations of companies to participants in a stock manipulation scheme, according to the Washington Post. (5-23-2002)

Originally posted by goose
The call, well do you really think that the person calling is going to give out details of the future 911 attack other than, don't fly tomorrow?

Your suggestion is that someone with knowledge of 9/11 risked exposing themselves by revealing this in an effort to keep someone who was never in any danger, safe. Unlikely. They also failed. Even more unlikely. There is a more likely explanation that doesn't have the problems faced by yours. Doesn't prove it's correct, but unless you're choosing conspiratorial explanations for the sake of it I think my answer is the most likely to be true.

The stocks that were taken out on the investment companies that had their main offices in the WTC was certainly not due to an expected loss. This type of trading that week was up 6 times more than usual.

Oh dear. Who says it's not due to an "expected loss"? As it happens I trade shares here in the UK all the time, and there are spikes on news regularly.

Examples relevant here... AMR saw a spike of 2,951 puts in the previous June, for instance. UAL saw spikes of over 8,000 in April and March of 2001 ( www.prisonplanet.com... )

So, these were high amounts, but they came at a time when investors had clear market reasons to sell as I outlined earlier. We don't need foreknowledge of 9/11 to explain the airline stock trades.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by ashmok]

the smoking gun isnt Silverstein's ambigous pull it remarks, it isn't NORAD drills, nor the WTC7 fall. The smoking gun is in the hearts and minds of the PNAC gang, and who truly benefited from 9/11. Believe they orchestrated it, believe they allowed it to happen, but we can all agree on that they are covering up the truth. I mean even republicans are crying aloud about 'Able Danger'. The US government KNEW who was going to carry this out, whether if they used them to or allowed them to. And by the US government, I mean a few folks way at the top.