9/11 Institutions

The most common objection people have to our research: "Too many people would have been involved to pull off such a massive hoax." Well, with trillions of taxpayers' dollars at hand, this operation could certainly afford contracting many individuals (under a gag order and on a need-to-know basis). Meet the real - and unreal - persons, companies & entities assigned to carry out this gigantic, media & military-assisted psyop.

Postby hoi.polloi on September 16th, 2010, 11:00 pm

That's some fun work. Thanks for the digging!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4689
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: 9/11 Institutions

Postby antipodean on August 5th, 2013, 9:28 am

Wanted to post this in the "Banks war against us" thread but thought it might get lost in the Teriyucki.

Recently came across an elite group of Bankers called "The Federal Reserve Primary Dealers" Each specially selected by the Fed to deal in their Bonds. This here is a list of the Fed's Primary Dealers as at 9/11/ 2001

Reads as a real list of 9/11 institutions, Cantor Fitzgerald have since joined in 2006, to become their biggest bond trader.

AMRO & UBS are 2 Banks where I've had someone tell me that they had employed someone they knew, who had perished in the Towers.
Yet AMRO don't appear to have had any casualties.

ABN AMRO Inc. Fuji Securities Inc.
BMO Nesbitt Burns Corp. Goldman, Sachs & Co.
BNP Paribas Securities Corp. Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc.
Bank of American Securities LLC HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
Bank One Capital Markets, Inc. J. P. Morgan Securities, Inc.
Barclays Capital Inc. Lehman Brothers Inc.
Bear Stearns & CO., Inc. Merrill Lynch Government Securities Inc.
CIBC World Markets Corp. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.
Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. Nomura Securities International, Inc.
Daiwa Securities America Inc. SG Cowen Securities Corp.
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. Salomon Smith Barney Inc. Dresdner Kenilworth Benson UBS Warburg LLC
North America LLC Zions First National



Here are the current group of usual suspects.
http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/pride ... rrent.html
Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency
BMO Capital Markets Corp.
BNP Paribas Securities Corp.
Barclays Capital Inc.
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
Daiwa Capital Markets America Inc.
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
Jefferies LLC
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
Mizuho Securities USA Inc.
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
Nomura Securities International, Inc.
RBC Capital Markets, LLC
RBS Securities Inc.
SG Americas Securities, LLC
UBS Securities LLC
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 2:53 am

Re: 9/11 Institutions

Postby Farcevalue on August 5th, 2013, 7:43 pm

As I understand it, the dealers buy the bonds at a particular rate, sell them at a few percentage points
higher and pocket the margin. If there are no or too few buyers, the Fed steps in buys them. Sweet!
Farcevalue
Member
 
Posts: 364
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 12:21 pm

Arthur Andersen

Postby antipodean on December 19th, 2013, 5:59 am

Someone by the name of Felix over at Lets Roll has been posting some interesting stuff about the companies, attending the Risk Waters conference at the WTC on 9/11, leading onto material about Arthur Andersen. The accountancy firm embroiled in the Enron scandal.

Back in Feb. 2001 Arthur Andersen sponsored an earlier Risk Waters conference at Windows on the World.
http://web.archive.org/web/200102031621 ... /index.htm

One of the companies present at the Risk Waters conference on 9/11 by the name of Accenture, was a company spun off from Arthur Andersen back in 2000. http://newsroom.accenture.com/article_d ... le_id=4170

http://www.riskwaters.com/wtc/

They appear to have had more than their fair share of vicsims.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memori ... -employer/

What if Andersen was heavily involved in the back stopping of companies within the WTC. The Enron stuff being a distraction, and the shredding of documents hiding their 9/11 role.
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 2:53 am

Re: 9/11 Institutions

Postby hoi.polloi on December 19th, 2013, 6:44 am

Two questions before boarding this creaky train of thought:

Is it possible to retroactively add web sites to web.archive.org?
How much does this web site actually resemble a real web site?

In brief, when researching many vicsims one comes across numerous sites which seem half-baked to a particular purpose. Sometimes they are memorials, sometimes seemingly ignored corners of big university sites, sometimes — rarely — actually recognized companies that anyone would remember from the 00's. Such as Enron.

So a poll asking which of three Risk Waters publications one reads implies 3 ongoing publications without the need to actually produce any publications; the poll does the psychological work of implying and creating 3 entire publications. The logo 'Andersen' does the psychological work of implying and creating a company, perhaps involved in 'scandal'.

In the same vein, a web site like the one you linked to legitimizes the character and feel, and therefore serves the purpose of being 'embroiled' in the Enron 'scandal' which was itself seemingly a largely marketed and possibly artificial story.

I think it's likely that if there were any prior backstopping (as in before the creation of the CNN memorial of vicsims), it would be done by a government military contractor using corporations and their names as a front. MITRE comes to mind, since that seems to be just a front for the CIA, complete with phony looking employees. How real was Enron anyway? Probably as real as the Iran-Contra 'scandal' used to blow steam (also connected to MITRE aka RAND aka CIA).

I could be wrong, but pinning the blame on these companies may be a red herring. Having said all that cautionary stuff, yeah, of course, connect the dots all you want! It could help the world out to know the simulation story as well as the real story behind its creators. Will it lead to any actual names though?

I think you are most right when you imply that these things are used to enact a purpose contrary to their immediate appearance.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4689
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: 9/11 Institutions

Postby antipodean on December 19th, 2013, 8:29 am

Is it possible to retroactively add web sites to web.archive.org?


I have often had similar thoughts myself about this, and you answer your question here.

In brief, when researching many vicsims one comes across numerous sites which seem half-baked to a particular purpose. Sometimes they are memorials, sometimes seemingly ignored corners of big university sites, sometimes — rarely — actually recognized companies that anyone would remember from the 00's. Such as Enron.


The motive for retroactively adding web sites to web. archive, is to obviously back stop the one time existence of a vicsim, especially sites linking to past Alumni.
I think you draw a long bow by suggesting
The logo 'Andersen' does the psychological work of implying and creating a company, perhaps involved in 'scandal'.
Because the target audience of those to be suckered into psychologically falling for the Red Herring would probably be 3 figures, given that so few people are pursuing this avenue of research, and those that are would have enough checks and balances in place to be cautious enough to see through it.

What I am trying to do is find the glue that holds all this stuff together. Once again it's London based companies Risk Waters, Accenture created from Arthur Andersen's large growing London head office.

Edit : interesting that this publication is also part of the Risk Waters group.
http://web.archive.org/web/200012150427 ... /index.htm
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 2:53 am

Re: 9/11 Institutions

Postby hoi.polloi on December 19th, 2013, 9:13 am

Let me put it this way. Cantor Fitzgerald still 'exists' on paper. So does this other thing you are trying to hunt down.

I agree London is a great place to look because of a number of things we've found.

But consider that http://www.riskwaters.com/bandwidth/intro.htm is one of the only operational sites at riskwaters.com — now, why would that be? Why would Risk Waters apparently exist just to continue to connect themselves to Enron? Was this some poor legal advice? Some court order by a judge? We can only presume the people who set up Risk Waters did this. 2011 is the WHOIS creation date. So even if records go back to 2003, that's still well after 2001. Who knows what INCISIVE MEDIA INVESTMENTS LIMITED really is or why they would preserve this page? It seems they are doing an awful lot of unnecessary work making themselves visible as a company around since 2000.

One guess — could be completely wrong — is that many people who profited off of 9/11 cashed out. That is, there was a great deal of backstopping going on, to an unnecessary degree, to manage "risk" (hence the whole meme about risk in the brokerages involved). As the event hit, perhaps everyone scrambled away to avoid blame. Nobody created anything or touched anything except those who are somehow getting something out of it now and are willing to continue taking on that risk.

"Howard Lutnick" seems to be one of those characters. Perhaps this Andersen thing you're on to is another. I'd say keep pursuing it, please. And being smart about it. But let's not assume just because we know Boeing and UBS bank are huge players in the 9/11 scam that we aren't being led to the asset management companies that have taken on the risk for all the small-time investors (who may be the most horrible players and string-pullers) and so on. I am not saying you are doing that, only wondering out loud.

Let's not forget the Anthony Lawson lesson, shall we? Remember the Anthony Lawson anti-Simon Shack videos were clearly a professional, video entertainment release meant to manage the risk of that company's investors, whomever they are. We don't know. This means the investors interested in not finding themselves tried for international crimes may be hiding in London, or it may mean they are simply hiring the best liars and legal-loophole-libelists that happen to be in London because City of London has been a culture run primarily on insidious lies and they have the best people to hire. Best being a relative term in their disgusting business of slime, politics, war and fear profiteering, and counterfeiting reality at the expense of what they consider "useless eaters".
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4689
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: 9/11 Institutions

Postby bostonterrierowner on December 19th, 2013, 8:08 pm

IMHO one of the reasons behind 9/11, WTC phony occupancy list and financial industry related tenants is getting away with years and years of capital markets manipulation.

As everyone concerned knows , playing the markets is a rigged game but there must be some considerable effort devoted to hiding the truth about the actual size of the angle the table is tilted.

Capital markets are comprised of the sharks and the smaller players. We have got brokers , dealers, broker-dealers , specialists , market makers and individual traders .

Years of rigging the game by the very few in the top of the pyramid may trigger some suspicions that in turn might result in some law suits and public question asking . Not every broker or a trader is in the know about how seriously the whole thing is manipulated.

We are talking about millions of participants that cannot be just ignored for a prolonged period of time in an outright, cheeky manner . They may simply quit trading and losing to the informed and super informed players .

Is there a better way to destroy the evidence than faking a "greatest terrorist attack in the world"?

Gone are the records of the biggest bond trader aka Cantor Fitzgerald and many other trading desks eg. the ones of Nomura, ING or whatnot .

I want to remind that Bernie Madoff was a huge player on Wall Street . Old Bernie just retired and took the shame on himself . Another PsyOp , another way of cooking the books.

All I want to say via this post is that every once in a while some clearing mechanism must be implemented to destroy the evidence .

"There is more sheer larceny per square foot on the floor of the NYSE than any place else in the world" - Richard Nay
bostonterrierowner
Member
 
Posts: 843
Joined: May 2nd, 2011, 11:01 pm

Re: 9/11 Institutions

Postby antipodean on December 30th, 2013, 10:53 pm

I recently listened to a rerun of this interview with Harry Marcopolos the guy credited with exposing the Madoff Ponzi scheme, before anyone else.

http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/63049 ... me-8-years

Interestingly Harry Marcopolos, says he tried to alert the authorities SEC etc. as far back as May 2001, but it all appeared to fall on deaf ears.
Also he says he wouldn't trust any major accountancy firm about the content of any of their audits.
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 2:53 am

Re: 9/11 Institutions

Postby Flabbergasted on May 19th, 2014, 2:44 am

Some weeks ago I was browsing fakeologist.com and had a look at abirato´s 9/11 bullet list.

Two things aroused my curiosity:

- "Lower Manhattan was evacuated early on 9/11/2001 – around 50 “drills” were used as the excuse"
- "psyOps are most likely done legally"

My questions:
- What information or testimony is available on these approx. 50 drills going on that day? Are there examples confirmed by the agencies carrying out these drills?
- The WTC site was presumably cordoned off very early that morning, but do we have any actual information/testimonies to that effect? Do we know what time this happened? What are the sources?

A thought:
It takes more than abstaining from killing people to make a psyop "legal". So, if psyops are "mostly legal" (and perhaps they really are), then it would be interesting to look into how and to whom they are submitted for pre-approval. Are psyops considered a special type of drill authorized by law? For example, can the New York State Office of Emergency Management legally authorize a psyop with MSM coverage, vicsims and actors playing relatives?

(I sent this same message to abirato by private message on April 18th)
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 600
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: 9/11 Institutions

Postby abirato on May 19th, 2014, 3:28 pm

Flabbergasted wrote:Some weeks ago I was browsing fakeologist.com and had a look at abirato´s 9/11 bullet list.

A thought:
It takes more than abstaining from killing people to make a psyop "legal". So, if psyops are "mostly legal" (and perhaps they really are), then it would be interesting to look into how and to whom they are submitted for pre-approval. Are psyops considered a special type of drill authorized by law? For example, can the New York State Office of Emergency Management legally authorize a psyop with MSM coverage, vicsims and actors playing relatives?

(I sent this same message to abirato by private message on April 18th)


If I received the message I don't remember it. I couldn't find it searching my archives. ;) As for who pre-approves these drills, that's a good question. My guess is that no-one does. If the top person at each agency isn't himself personally compromised, than the psyOp leaders can simply spoof the institution and say that they said something, via a simspokesman. Who in the real organization is going to speak out against it? Who will they call? Once more, the media controls the message, and the Nutwork controls the media. Therefore I doubt any of these organizations are authorizing anything.
abirato
Member
 
Posts: 54
Joined: August 10th, 2012, 1:49 am

Re: 9/11 Institutions

Postby Flabbergasted on May 19th, 2014, 11:35 pm

Thanks for the feedback, abirato.

abirato wrote:I doubt any of these organizations are authorizing anything.


I just figured, if it´s (mostly) legal and involves deploying human and material resources, then a bureaucratic society like the US would produce some sort of documentation registering or acknowledging it.

And the fifty or so early-morning drills in Manhattan?
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 600
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Postby SacredCowSlayer on September 20th, 2015, 11:55 pm

ADMIN NOTICE (simon): I have moved this interesting post by SacredCowSlayer here (from our "Required-Introduce Yourself" thread).


Flabbergasted wrote:Hi SCS,
Good to have you onboard. You seem to place fairness and objectivity in the high seat.
SacredCowSlayer wrote:Finally, if you or any members have a legal question I'll be glad to answer (where appropriate of course) as best I can.

Since you are inviting legal questions (free of charge, I hope :P ), I was wondering if you had any input regarding the question of legality of psyops which was raised here:
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=177&p=2390265#p2390265


Well let me say I appreciate the question as it seems to come up often these days.

The NDAA of 2013 contained an Amendment sponsored by Representatives Mac Thornberry (R-TX) (my district incidentally) and Adam Smith (D-WA) which essentially removed a post WWII ban on domestic propaganda.

The authors of the law tried to assure us that it in no way was authorizing the use of propaganda in the U.S. The only people who are comforted by such assurances are the same ones who believe everything else they have been told by the government.

It's clear that the propaganda never stopped to begin with. So why would they need to legalize something they have been doing unfettered for decades?

The answer seems simple enough to me. Formally legalizing it opens the door for Congress to have a more active role (which = more $$$ and power) in the psy-ops. For a long time it has been almost a purely Executive function paid for out of the executive "black budget". That said I have no doubt that there are members in both the House and Senate who have been privy to the operations for a long time.

The other side benefit is that they get to imply that there has been no propaganda in the U.S. because of the ban that was in place. So it's really a win (legislative branch) win (executive branch) win (media) for all those involved.

I see (on the thread you cited) there has been some discussion about the official involvement of the alphabet agencies. There must be significant cooperation between these agencies and the media.

After both the Sandy Hook and the Charleston events the Justice Department fast tracked over $20 million tax dollars to the "victims". Obviously there was a ton of money in play as a result of 911 as well, which no doubt went (at least in part) to paying off the players involved.

In the Boston and Aurora hoaxes we have circus trials in real courts which necessarily requires official government entities being involved. I suspect that the DHS and FEMA are the primary agencies involved. The state's and local governments have (it seems to me) been bought.

I will have more to say in the near future about how the federal government goes about securing the cooperation of the people involved in their ops. That in itself is a fascinating topic.

If my response doesn't belong in this thread I apologize. I wasn't sure where to respond to the question.
SacredCowSlayer
Member
 
Posts: 227
Joined: September 5th, 2015, 10:44 pm

Re: 9/11 Institutions

Postby antipodean on October 31st, 2016, 10:39 pm

I've just come across this article printed in June 2000. It basically says that due to changing technology companies such as Cantor Fitzgerald will probably be soon, laying off a large number of their brokers.
Some of the other usual suspects also get a mention.

http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/tradin ... id/1253674

Cantor Fitzgerald, proving itself more prescient than its competitors, identified the benefits of e-commerce early on and rolled out a product and division last year called eSpeed. eSpeed is ultimately an electronic alternative to the inter-dealer broker as it offers Cantor's banking clients the option of offloading large bond transactions online.


Chris Ferreri, head of IT strategy for Garban, acknowledges the fear emanating throughout the broker community, a growing sense of doom. "My first answer to them is that I'm not sure how electronic trading impacts the broker a year from now,"[/quote]

Cantor, realizing earlier than most the ways in which online matching engines would change the fixed-income arena, reportedly poured $200 million over the past three years into developing eSpeed, and went so far as rolling out the division in a direct public offering. One might say that Cantor is leaving nothing to chance. Representatives at eSpeed did not return numerous phone calls.


Maybe C/F compiled their vicsim list simply by replacing the name of someone who recently lost their job, with an allocated name from the vicsim list.
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 2:53 am

Previous

Return to THE 9/11 HOAX infrastructure - and its operatives: too many people involved?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest