Evidence and September 11th fit well together, like puzzle pieces. The amount of data pointing towards alternative solutions to the who, what, why, and where’s of that fateful day leave many questions officially unanswered; not to mention millions of people perplexed about how their brethren just don’t seem to see what they see. Even former assistant secretary to the Treasury under Reagan and father of Reaganomics, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, has extensively questioned that day’s events. In February, Roberts wrote an article about that month’s Washington Times article by Jennifer Harper, called “Inside the Beltway,” which detailed 31 press conferences held by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of professionals which has 1,000 members, in cities in the US and abroad on February 19. 
This organization cites as suspicious the following in regards to the collapse of the north and south towers and WTC 7: for starters, that fires in high rises have never brought down a steel-framed high rise building; in the case of building 7, the tower collapses straight down into its own footprint at freefall acceleration in the first 100 feet or two and a half seconds; in that building, there were 40,000 tons of structural steel designed to resist the collapse of the 47 storey structure, which stood a football field away from the Twin Towers, as well as important Enron and WorldCom records. In the north and south towers, several tons of pooled molten iron—reported by first responders, structural engineers, and documented by FEMA—were detailed, although jet plane impact and normal office fires don’t produce molten iron or steel, since it doesn’t begin to melt until 3,000 degrees. The 9/11 fires probably produced upwards of 1,600 degree temperatures.
Chemical evidence of a high-tech incendiary called nano-thermite—used to cut through steel—was found in all the dust sprinkled throughout lower Manhattan. In this dust, there are several tons of tiny spheres of previously molten iron, a by-product of thermite. 
Retired army Major General Albert Stubblebine, who, in his last assignment, was responsible for all of the army’s strategic intelligence forces around the world, is one of many authoritative personalities on the 9/11 events; in his last command, he held the responsibility for signals intelligence, photos intelligence, counter-intelligence and human intelligence. While speaking out for 9/11 truth, he warrants his suspicious by citing his vast experience analyzing photos, and for all sorts of evidence at that. About his conclusions regarding the Pentagon explosion, the former Major General has said: “from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very carefully, it was not an airplane…for one thing, if you looked at the hole that was made in the Pentagon, the nose penetrated far enough so that there should have been wing-marks in the wall of the Pentagon…so where were they?” 
“A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7,” reports the Washington Times. The Times reports that the architects and engineers have concluded that FEMA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology garnered “insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction” and are “calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials.” 
Further implications abound, like pseudo-sophisticated trades made on insider information that caused huge profits for manipulators who foresaw the stocks of certain airline and insurance companies plummeting in the days after Sept. 11 2001.
The Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT), in Herzliya, Israel, printed an article entitled, “Black Tuesday: World’s Largest Insider Trading Scam?” on Sept. 19, 2001. Author Don Radlauer, an expert in stock options and derivatives, gave details of the types and volumes of the trades, saying: “Obviously, anyone who had detailed knowledge of the attacks before they happened was, at the very least, an accessory to their planning; and the overwhelming probability is that the trades could have been made only by the same people who masterminded the attacks themselves.” According to Radlauer, the timing, specificity, size and unusual nature of the trades made them suspect. “The trading is sure to have been done under false names, behind shell corporations, and in general to have been thoroughly obfuscated.”
Up there with the most suspicious spikes in trading activity were high increases in “put options,” which are highly leveraged bets that a certain stock’s share price will fall. The spike in “put options” placed on the two airlines involved in the hijackings of Sept. 11, United Airlines (UAL) and American Airlines, have not been officially or satisfactorily investigated.
A 9,000 percent jump in United Air Lines (UAL) put options between Sept. 6 and Sept. 10, with a 285 percent jump on the Thursday before the attack, coincides with a 6,000 percent jump in American Airlines put options. There was no similar trading activity on other airlines, according to market reports. Major brokerage houses with offices in WTC, Morgan Stanley and Merrill-Lynch, had 27-fold and 12-fold increases in put option purchases on their respective shares between Sept. 7 and Sept. 10.
“The afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market,” the CBS program 60 Minutes reported on Sept. 19. Investigator Michael C. Ruppert ensures: “These trades were certainly noticed after the attacks.”
“This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you’ve ever seen in your entire life . . . this would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence,” Bloomberg Business News’ Dylan Ratigan said Sept. 20.
Although the chief of enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission, William McLucas, said regulators would “certainly be able to track down every trade, where the trade cleared, where the trade was directed from,” no U.S. or foreign agency has made public arrests as a result of investigations into these trades. 
Making Economic Society for a Specific Transformation
Evidently, there was quite a bit of insider information to trade on in the days and weeks leading up to 9/11. That major Wall Street firms protected themselves and prospered from “lucky” trading, evidences perceived usefulness of 9/11 to major players of the planet’s increasingly total corporatocracy. A section entitled “Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force” in the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century’s document, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, vaguely, but clearly to those fluent in technocraticese, outlines what is needed to spur societal change: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” Many analysts see 9/11 as the “Pearl Harbor” prophesized by PNAC, whose membership includes Richard Dick Cheney, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Donald Rumself, Paul Wolfowitz, Steve Forbes, Jeb Bush, among others. Therefore, 9/11 can be seen as a multi-faceted opportunity on which policy makers could capitalize in favor of long-desired plans.
Shorting the Gulf Region: environmental and financial terrorism?
Just like trades before 9/11 should cause concern and questions, so too do trades made by major players in the days leading up the BP oil leak. Goldman Sachs, a premiere brokerage firm, sold 4,680,822 shares of BP in the first quarter of 2010. Goldman’s sales represented the largest of any firm during that period. If the firms’ shares been sold at the average price of BP’s stock that quarter, it would have gained more than $266 million from its holdings. Had the firm sold those shares today, their investment would have lost 36+ percent on its value; so, roughly $96+ million. Shares sold were 44 percent of Goldman’s position in the Big Oil firm, the largest sales of oil shares in its trading history. Of course, the remaining holdings have lost tens of millions in their value. 
Paul Noel, an expert on the Gulf Oil subject, provided intelligence on the shorting: 
There is a reason they could have known the rig was going to fail up to two weeks ahead of its failure. The nature of these wells is that they leave the drill mud in the well and compress using very heavy drill mud to keep the well from blowing up unlimited. The well would begin to bump (similar to boiling a big bubble) and the acoustic signals would tell the rig was in trouble that far ahead. Goldman Sachs could just have had inside info. They also know the scale of things. This is the best explanation. It could be otherwise.
If you were going to sabotage a drilling team, all you would have to do is load a lighter mud in the mix as they pulled a drill pipe…There are lots of ways to have this happen either accidentally or deliberately. Goldman teams are great on statistical stuff sort of like the odds of rolling dice. They might just have figured stats for probability of failure??? Of course we could surmise other reasons are possible.
Such movements of volume—such as those seen before 9/11 and 4/20, the first day of the oil leak—are not atypical of large asset management firms, for Wall Street brokerages regularly buy and sell huge blocks of shares, not only for themselves, but for their oftentimes uber-rich clients as well. That such a voluminous movement of economic power preceded incomprehensible destruction is par for the course in the embryonic, soviet modeled command-and-control global economy of today (and other deference systems before that, for that matter). By way of economic democracy, intriguing, but delicate super-alliances and their under-the-table agreements forge the future. For centuries, society has been made economically, and clearly today fits in well with the pattern: to usher in crises as a means to justifying artificial scarcity, presenting new solutions previously unviable, followed by the policy’s and courses to which those solutions lead.
Goldman was not the only asset firm to sell huge blocks of BP stock in the first quarter, though these other firms sold off fractions of what Goldman did. Wachovia, owned by Wells Fargo, sold 2,667,419 shares, while UBS—a Swiss bank—sold 2,667,419 shares. A staggering fact that points towards numerous interesting conversational rabbit holes, especially concerning Goldman Sachs’s clout, Wachovia and UBS sold greater percentages of their BP stock; those being, 98 percent and 97 percent respectively.
BP Chief Executive, Tony Hayward, also sold considerable stock in BP. Four weeks before the oil leak, the BP chief cashed in about a third of his holdings in the company. By doing so, he avoided losing £423,000 pounds when BP's share price plunged after the leak. His decision, however, helped him to avoid losing more than £423,000 when BP’s share price plunged after the oil spill began six weeks ago.  Further, on April 12th, more than a week before the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, Haliburton, the world's second largest oilfield services corporation, unexpectedly acquired Boots & Coots, a small but much experienced oil well-control company. The company handles fires and blowouts on oil rigs and oil wells. 
Wellington Management, a large asset firm, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were reported to be purchasing BP’s stock. 
Corporate Operational Defiance Disorder and the Management of Globalization
BP officially admits to just a few thousand barrels hemorrhaging into the ocean each day. Contradictorily, experts estimate the true figure at 60,000 barrels or 2.5 million gallons daily. Truth being, the real figures are unknowable, considering that BP has barred independent engineers from looking at the breach. When this part of the Earth will run out of oil, nobody can be certain. Meanwhile, under the radar of the corporate media, Transocean Ltd.—the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig leased by BP—has made $270 million off the oil leak through post-disaster insurance payouts. 
On May 20th, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ordered the London-based BP to cease dispersant of Corexit 9500 (used to break up the leaked oil) or to describe in detail why other dispersants do not meet environmental standards. BP stated that the chemical product now in use is “the best option for subsea application.” 
The 1989 Exxon Valdez spill leaked nearly 11 million gallons of crude, killing vibrant and diverse wildlife and damaging the reputation of Exxon. In fact, the leader of containment efforts in the hours just after the tanker began leaking was not Exxon Mobil Corp, but, truly, BP, owing to their 1989 ownership of a controlling 50.01 percent share in the consortium.
Watching the crisis in the Gulf unfold is akin to reliving the Valdez disaster for attorney Zygmut Plater, who conducted the legal team for the state-appointed Alaska Oil Spill Commission that investigated the Exxon spill. “I feel this horrible, sickening feeling,” said Plater, now a teacher at Boston College. “What happened in Alaska was determined by decisions coming from (BP in) Houston,” he said.
Today, Plater laments an approach in regards to the ’89 spill that attempted to avoid pointing fingers. “In retrospect, it could’ve focused attention on BP and created transparency which would’ve changed the internal culture,” he said. “As we see the internal culture appears not to have changed with tragic results.” 
One defense yet to be tried to stop the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico is billions of hydrocarbon-chewing microbes, like Alcanivorax Borkumensis. One purpose of the 830,000 chemical dispersants used to combat the oil slick is to break the oil into smaller droplets, which are easier for bacteria to consume. Nature hosts innumerable types of organisms who, as a community, combine to decompose oil. No single microbe has proved more efficient than this natural defense. “Every ocean we look at, from the Antarctic to the Arctic, there are oil-degrading bacteria,” says Atlas, who analyzed genetically engineered microbes and other cleanup methods in the wake of the Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Alaska. “Petroleum has thousands of compounds. Its complex and the communities that feed on it are complex. A superbug fails because it competes with this community that is adapted to the environment.” Marine-dwelling bacteria and fungi use hydrocarbons as fuel by breaking up hydrocarbons with enzymes and oxygen, their populations growing exponentially in days. 
Basis for Legal Action
A clause buried in the U.S. Clean Water Act means that BP and others could be charged with, for all intents and purposes, near unlimited fines. The act enables the government to seek civil penalties in court for each drop of oil that spills into US navigable waters, including the area of the leaking well. The US government could fine BP or others up to $4,300 for each barrel leaked into the Gulf and surrounding marine ecosystems, say legal experts familiar with official documents. Should the US government aggressively pursue legal action, the amount of fines could potentially bankrupt BP. 
Those investors who divested from BP could have done so due to information regarding pipe conditions, since BP knew of equipment problems on the Deepwater Horizon rig at least hours before the explosion, implicating them as accessory to the events. In mid-May, the House of Representatives energy and commerce committee learned that documents and company briefings were suggestive that BP, the well’s owner; Transocean, the rig owner; and Haliburton, the company which cemented into place the casing for the well, ignored 20 April tests that indicated faulty equipment. Among the failures are a dead battery in the blowout preventer, suggestions of a breach in the well casing, and “failure” in the shear ram, which was the device responsible for cutting through and sealing the drill pipe in the event of blowout.
While the energy and commerce committee reviewed the gross negligence on the part of the oil industry, Senator John Kerry and Joe Lieberman introduced a climate and energy bill that for the very first time will put a price on carbon and impose cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
“This is a bill for energy independence after a devastating oil spill, a bill to hold polluters accountable, a bill for billions of dollars to create the next generation of jobs and a bill to end America’s addiction to foreign oil,” said Kerry, who believes the oil spill would help get the American Power Act passed. The passage of this law is viewed by experts as essential to a global deal on climate change. 
Or maybe the stocks were sold pre-spill due to predicted drops in the price of the oil due to a poor economy. The US Energy Information Administration reduced its 2010 and 2010 forecasts for oil prices. The change represents a drop in oil prices since the last report, the reason being concerns over an elusive economic recovery. To cite this as a reason for Goldman Sach's largest divestment from an oil company in its history would be unsatisfactory. 
Trickle Down Terror
Like the 9/11 events were used to justify “transformation” towards a more totalitarian order in not only the United States, but myriad countries, 4/20 could give way to its own transformations. Thus far, all evidence suggests it is the largest environmental catastrophe in US history. While actions taken after 9/11 were officially said to be crucial to America’s collective safety, the aftermath of 4/20 might result in a quickening of the U.S. economy’s greening. The ‘green’ economy program has been criticized by many for its ultimate results, which mirror IMF and World Bank austerity measures and structural adjustments, also known as “economic medicine.” Spain’s experience with a ‘green’ economy speaks to that trend.
Spain’s current unemployment rate is 18.1 percent, more than twice the European Union average. Gabriel Calzada has furnished a report arguing that Spain’s high-velocity spending on the production of electricity from renewable sources, higher than any other nation, creates only temporary jobs. Moreover, each job devoted to wind farms and other alternative energy projects entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs lost or not created due to politicized investment towards a ‘green’ economy.
The sub-optimum allocation of capital was accompanied by European media reports on so-called “eco-corruption,” which entailed a “footprint of sleaze”—subsidy systems were gamed, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc. According to Calzada, the alternative energy job program has subtracted approximately 110,000 jobs from other sectors in Spain’s economy. To further de-industrialize the US economy would be in-line with arrangements of the last decade, such as NAFTA and GATT treaties, which have all abetted the transformation of the US economy into an interdependent service economy. 
It comes as no surprise that BP finds itself at the center of controversy on President Obama’s watch, who received a hefty campaign contribution from British Petroleum (the largest of any of the candidates).  Overall, the foremost concerns of both BP and the President—Goldman Sachs, by the way, was his largest campaign contributor—have centered on public relations and marketing. The apologist corporate-media have been complicit, but BP has taken further and absolute measures to ensure they control their image. The Big Oil firm bought terms like “oil spill” from search engine providers such as Google Inc. “to help direct users to its website as it attempts to control the worst oil spill in U.S. history.” Taking Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Cass Sunstein’s theory of “nudging people” to make better decisions, BP has invested capital in the art of “nudging people” away from the environmental catastrophe they were complicit in bringing about. BP will pay fees so its own website would rank higher or top the list of results when Internet users search on terms such as “oil spill,” “volunteer” and “claims.” On the “boob tube”, BP has spent $50 million on TV advertising to bolster its image during the crisis. 
As I highlighted earlier, Bloomberg Business News’ Dylan Ratigan said this of the insider trading before 9/11:
“This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you’ve ever seen in your entire life . . . this would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence.”
In these times, is there such a thing as coincidence? Has 4/20 outdone even 9/11?
1. Roberts, Paul Craig, Phd. 9/11: The Road to Armageddon, CounterCurrents, 26 February 2010.
Accessed at: http://www.countercurrents.org/roberts260210.htm
2. Richard Gage video interview
Accessed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssuAMNas1us
3. Major General Stubblebine video interview:
Accessed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssuAMNas1us
4. Bollyn, Christopher. Revealing 9-11 Stock Trades Could Expose The Terrorist Masterminds. Global Research, 18 December 2004.
Accessed at: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BOL412B.html
5. Byrne, John. Goldman Sachs sold $250 million of BP stock before spill. Raw Story, 2 June 2010.
Accessed at: http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0602/month-oil-spill-goldman-sachs-sold-250-million-bp-stock/
6. Sterling, Allan. No Joke: Goldman Sachs Shorted Gulf of Mexico. Examiner, 5 May 2010.
7. Swaine, John and Winnett, Robert. BP chief Tony Hayward sold shares weeks before oil spill. Telegraph UK, 05 June 2010.
Accessed at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7804922/BP-chief-Tony-Hayward-sold-shares-weeks-before-oil-spill.html
8. Watson, John Paul and Alex Jones. Evidence Points To BP Oil Spill False Flag. InfoWars, 8 June 2010.
Accessed at: http://www.infowars.com/evidence-points-to-bp-oil-spill-false-flag/
9. Perdono, Daniela. Ten Things You Need (But Don’t Want) To Know About the BP Oil Spill. Global Research, 27 May 2010.
Accessed at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19408
10. Roosevelt Margot and Carolyn Cole. BP Refuses EPA order to switch to less toxic oil dispersant. LA Times, 23 May 2010.
Accessed at: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/23/nation/la-na-oil-spill-0100523
11. Schwartz, Noaki. BP Had a Key Role in the Exxon Valdez Disaster. Associated Press, 25 May 2010.
12. Biello, David. Slick Solution: How Microbes Will Clean Up the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Scientific American, 25 May 2010.
Accessed at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-microbes-clean-up-oil-spills
13. Schneyer, Joshua. Civil Fine in Gulf Oil Spill Could Be $4,300 barrel. Reuters, 26 May, 2010.
14. Goldenberg, Suzanne. Gulf Oil Spill: firms ignored warning signs before blast, inquiry hears. UK Guardian, 13 May 2010.
Accessed at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/12/deepwater-gulf-oil-spill-hearing
15. Baskin, Brian. EIA Cuts Oil Price Outlook As Uncertainty About Economy Weighs, NASDAQ 8 June 2010.
Accessed at: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201006081243dowjonesdjonline000349&title=eia-cuts-oil-price-outlook-as-uncertainty-about-economy-weighs#ixzz0qHZIM2CN
16. Will, George. Spain’s experience with the ‘green’ economy: Save the planet, lose some jobs. The Seattle Times, 25 June 2009.
Accessed at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009385016_will26.html
17. Burkart, Karl. Coast Guard and BP threaten journalists with arrest for documenting spill. Mother Nature Network, 18 May 2010
17.Young, Sarah and Bergin, Tom. BP buys search term “oil spill” from Google. Reuters, 9 June 2010.
Accessed at: http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/bp-buys-search-term-oil-spill-from-google-reuters_molt-c8ff670e72dc.html;_ylt=Al_QfhKyykBmyN4XkTc1oqnBXGwF;_ylu=X3oDMTE2djI4c2liBHBvcwMxMgRzZWMDdG9wc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDYnBidXlzc2VhcmNo?x=0