MASSIVE SELL OFF OF US DOLLAR: PRELUDE TO AN ATTACK??

gg3 · Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:58 am Post subject:

However, Putin did sign Kyoto, bringing it into force. What I find interesting about the mainstream media's treatment of Putin is that he is always shown in photographs taken from slightly above him looking down, and with his eyes glancing to the side. That is, these photographs deliberately convey the impression of "sneaky."

Regardless of the etiology of 9-11, attacking Iran would be the height of stupidity. Iran doesn't even have a credible capability yet, their uranium enrichment facility is still a long way from completion, so there is still plenty of time for negotiation. Given that the head of Iran's oil production, Dr. Bhaktiari, speaks freely and vigorously about peak oil (he's also a participant on this board), it's more likely that Iran is primarily seeking to supply its own energy needs with nuclear power so it can sell more of its oil to the world as the price goes through the roof. Reason it out, that would be the logical thing for any oil-producing nation to do.

The smart thing for Iran to do right now would be to declare that it was putting its nuclear enrichment program on hold pending further international negotiations. In essence stall for time, at least until after the election, and if Kerry wins, after he's sworn in. That is, don't give Bush an excuse to invade on 3 November.

Here's another piece for you.

Over the summer came the news item that someone high in the Bush Admin had leaked to one of Chalabi's people (i.e. Iranian spies) the fact that the US had successfully decrypted the top-level Iranian cipher systems. (Leaking that kind of stuff is a serious crime, that item was "top secret / SCI-crypto", and SCI means "sensitive compartmented information", which only goes out to a small list of individuals, listed by name, so those are your possible suspects, and yet no one has been charged...)

The immediate result would have necessarily been that Iran upgraded its cryptographic systems, presumably to a level it felt the US couldn't read (or could only read with much difficulty and delay; public-key systems such as RSA and its derivatives including PGP are not impenetrable).

This in turn would result in a backlog of Iranian ciphertext intercepts awaiting cryptanalysis, similar to the backlog of cleartext intercepts awaiting language translation prior to 9-11. (People at NSA are already majorly pissed-off at the Bush Admin for making their jobs harder, and this is a classic case.)

So then the Bush Admin has an excuse: "Look at all the traffic we can't read!" and then, "Look, there's been an *increase* in the traffic, we still can't read it, but it *must* mean something bad is going on!" This becomes a rationale for increasing the rhetoric level and building public support for some kind of aggressive move on Iran.

Much like the bad intel on Iraq, except this time the "proof" is *itself* "negative." Instead of "we have pictures of mobile anthrax labs" (which are later not found, creating a credibility problem), it would be "we have traffic we can't read, which means something sinister is afoot!", and there is no way to disprove that point later.

With Iraq, there was no way Saddam could "prove a negative" (prove he *didn't* have WMDs). With Iran, it's starting to look like there'll be no way that American critics, much less Iranian officials, can "disprove a negative" (disprove that the unread traffic is not sinister).

Watch out folks, this is not good. My item above is only one datapoint, but it's consistent with the others we've seen, and there are probably many more we haven't seen yet.

Y'all better get out there and vote, and then do volunteer work watching the polls for the rest of the day.

Grimnir · Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:02 pm Post subject:

Let me try to boil it down to the basic questions:

-What things were "they" hoping to accomplish with the attacks?
-Did they accomplish these things? If not, why not?
-Why haven't they used similar tactics when it would have helped them the most?
-If the goal was to justify an invasion of Iraq, why didn't they blame Iraq in the first place instead of Afghanistan?

I read most of Ruppert's site months ago and agree that "something" was up, but I don't think "the administration planned it for political gain" is the only possible explanation.

some_guy282 · Intermediate Crude Joined: Jul 18, 2004 Posts: 689

StayOnTarget · Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:03 pm Post subject:

Someguy - Don't forget the "unsolved" anthrax attacks.

Hmmm... anthrax sent to liberal media outlets and powerful democratic members of congress just after 9/11. Anthrax that was traced to US labs, yet no arrests after 3 years. It was after these attacks that the patriot act got ramrodded through congress.

One need only read the Project for a New American Century website to see the will buried within the rhetoric. The neocons needed 9/11.

From and earlier post on another thread:

1) Its a basic idea. Elements of the agencies and the administration charged with protecting Americans were either criminally negligent or criminally complicit. There's really no gray area. If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were merely negligent there's no way to explain the fact that noone was fired, in fact many were promoted after 9/11.

2) Follow the money. Remember the federal goverment offered victims families an avg payout of 1.65 million dollars each in exchange for their legal right to sue. I don't recall the goverment giving anything to victims families of the Oklahoma city bombing.

http://tinyurl.com/52lc2

3) If not for 9/11 the political will would not have existed to invade Afghanistan (for the pipeline), then Iraq (for the oil reserves).

zed · Tar Sands Joined: May 19, 2004 Posts: 98

Ruppert also makes a good point about the 9/11 insider trading. The trading you heard so much about in the month after attacks and then was dropped from the mass media. The Kean Commission omits any serious discussion of this very obvious line of inquiry.

Anyway, Ruppert documents how the level of trading in United and American Airlines in the days before 9/11 (and even the morning of 9/11) were far beyond normal levels. The government has released few actual records of the trading and one of the involved institutions (Deutsche Bank) ultimately has ties to the CIA. Considering the insane amount of surveillance of world financial markets, it is preposterous to think the US government could not figure out who profited from trades. Ruppert concludes that foreign intelligence agencies (who had advance warning of 9/11) probably were responsible for much of the trading and that pursuing that line of inquiry would simply reveal the obvious - that 9/11 was not a surprise attack to many at the highest levels of world power.

Grimnir · Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:56 am Post subject:

Here's another question. If Ruppert is on to the BA's secret plan and in the process of exposing it to the public, why haven't they thrown him in Guantanamo Bay or something?

bobcousins · Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 6:03 am Post subject:

PLEASE...if you talk to anyone about Peak Oil, don't reveal you believe that the US government orchestrated 9/11. They will think you are insane.

I've never seen such a load of nonsense. There is a "proof" that the WTC towers were deliberately demolished. The author invokes physics, but clearly has no clue what he is talking about. As for all the other misinformation and coincidences...
_________________
It's all downhill from here

TheSupplyGuy · Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:54 am Post subject:

I don't think the government orchestrated 9/11, but I do believe they let it happen, sorta like with Pearl Harbor.
_________________
In the long run, men hit only what they aim at. Therefore, though they should fail immediately, they had better aim at something high.-Thoreau
Peak Oil

AnnaLivia · Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:15 am Post subject:

stealing a quote from montequest's book: the unaware are unaware that they are unaware

ahem

a big tip o' the cap to the rest of you.

one teeny disagreement: the MOTIVE is omnipotent world wealth/power dominance through one-world government. looks to me like peak oil is going to be the omnipresent MEANS. (and ain't it getting meaner everyday!)

gee, and i had a bet that cell phones were gonna dance before we fed the starving. looks like i'll never get to collect.
_________________
"O hell, here comes our funeral. Let us pry....for our missed understandings."

AnnaLivia · Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:44 pm Post subject:

may i just add...

no matter how long it takes, no matter what energy source whatever number of humans (left) are using, there are those who are determined to be in control of world wealth/power. and they'd cancel the whole game for everyone before they'd settle for losing.

if you choose not to look into this, you might oughta seek treatment for that gambling problem you've got.....
_________________
"O hell, here comes our funeral. Let us pry....for our missed understandings."