LJWorld.com weblogs On the Transition to a Sustainable Paradigm

Taboo or Not, Journalists Have a Duty to Report the Full Truth about 9/11


Note to readers: Please note that this is not an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories. No where in the article does the author state "9/11 was an inside job," or even imply as much. Also of note, there are not "two sides to this story" - criticizing the 9/11 commission does not imply inside job or conspiracy. In fact, criticism does not imply or necessitate conclusions being made, despite everyone wanting to jump to conclusions.

What is the full truth of 9/11/2001? It is, quite simply, to tell all sides of the story. It means weaving together all the known facts, unanswered questions, significant actors and conflicting viewpoints into a single complex narrative that gives fair weight and context to all the relevant perspectives. It means writing the news - and the analysis of that news - independent from government, advertising, corporate, and cultural pressures.

Very few journalists, sadly, have done this, or are capable of this. But I believe it remains the duty of all good journalists to feature critical perspectives on 9/11. They should be prepared to do this regardless of the political cost or potential loss in support this may cause. Once a journalist or citizen becomes aware of the legitimate and unreported aspects of this story, it is simply the right thing to do.

Of course, all of this hinges on the question of credibility.

All serious journalists must acknowledge that if there is credible, verifiable information which supports a critical view of the government's story, that voice deserves fair representation. To side-step this moral dilemma, a majority of the media would have the reader believe that there are no valid questions or facts that deserve your attention, and so almost universally we see writers attacking 9/11 skeptics with ridicule and straw man arguments without ever giving context to their claims. 

But the truth is, there are dozens of news-worthy stories that contradict or muddy the official narrative, the facts of which have even been verified and reported on by mainstream outlets. But these stories are almost always buried or insulated from related stories which obscure their significance.

Briefly, here are just 25 examples, taken from WanttoKnow.info (Please take note of the sources):

1996-2001: On multiple occasions spies give detailed reports on bin Laden's location. Each time, the CIA director or White House officials prevent bin Laden's elimination. [Los Angeles Times, 12/5/04New York Times, 12/30/01more

2000-2001: 15 of the 19 hijackers fail to fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia. Only six are interviewed. All 15 should have been denied entry to the US. [Washington Post, 10/22/02ABC, 10/23/02] Two top Republican senators say if State Department personnel had merely followed the law, 9/11 would not have happened. [AP, 12/18/02more]

2000-2001: The military conducts exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets causing mass casualties. One target is the World Trade Center (WTC), another the Pentagon. Yet after 9/11, over and over the White House and security officials say they're shocked that terrorists hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings. [USA Today, 4/19/04Military District of Washington, 11/3/00New York Times, 10/3/01more]

Jan 2001: After the November 2000 elections, US intelligence agencies are told to "back off" investigating the bin Ladens and Saudi royals. There have always been constraints on investigating Saudi Arabians. [BBC, 11/6/01more]

May 2001: For the third time, US security chiefs reject Sudan's offer of thick files on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. A senior CIA source calls it "the worst single intelligence failure in the business." [Guardian, 9/30/01more]

June-Aug 2001:  German intelligence warns the CIA that Middle Eastern terrorists are training for hijackings and targeting American interests. Russian President Vladimir Putin alerts the US of suicide pilots training for attacks on US targets. In late July, a Taliban emissary warns the US that bin Laden is planning a huge attack on American soil. In August, Israel warns of an imminent Al Qaeda attack. [Fox News, 5/17/02Independent, 9/7/02CNN, 9/12/02more]

July 26, 2001: Attorney General Ashcroft stops flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment. [CBS, 7/26/01] In May 2002, Ashcroft walks out of his office rather than answer questions about it. [Fox News/AP, 5/16/02more]

Aug 6, 2001: President Bush receives an intelligence briefing warning that bin Laden might be planning to hijack airliners. Titled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," the briefing specifically mentions the WTC. Yet Bush later claims it "said nothing about an attack on America." [CNN, 4/12/04Washington Post, 4/12/04Briefing, 8/6/01more]

Aug 27, 2001: An FBI supervisor tries to ensure that a hijacker doesn't "take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center." [Senate Report, 10/17/02] Headquarters chastises him for notifying the CIA. [Time, 5/21/02more]

Sept 10, 2001: A number of top Pentagon brass suddenly cancel travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns. Why isn't this news spread widely? [Newsweek, 9/13/01Newsweek, 9/24/01more]

Sept 11, 2001: Data recovery experts extract data from 32 damaged WTC computer drives. The data reveals a surge in financial transactions shortly before the attacks. Illegal transfers of over $100 million may have been made through WTC computer systems immediately before and during the 9/11 disaster. [Reuters, 12/18/01CNN, 12/20/01more]

Sept 11, 2001: Described as a bizarre coincidence, a US intelligence agency was set for an exercise on Sept 11 at 9 AM in which an aircraft would crash into one of its buildings near Washington, DC. [USA Today/AP, 8/22/02more

Sept 11, 2001: Hours after the attacks, a "shadow government" is formed. Key congressional leaders say they didn't know this government-in-waiting had been established. [CBS, 3/2/02Washington Post, 3/2/02more]

Sept 11, 2001: Six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners make a tape recording describing the events within hours of the attacks. The tape is never turned over to the FBI. It is later illegally destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it. [Washington Post, 5/6/04NY Times, 5/6/04]

Sept 13-19, 2001: Bin Laden's family is taken under FBI supervision to a secret assembly point. They leave the country by private plane when airports reopen days after the attacks. [New York Times, 9/30/01Boston Globe, 9/20/01more]

Sept 15-16, 2001: Several of the 9/11 hijackers, including lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, may have had training at secure US military installations. [Newsweek, 9/15/01Washington Post, 9/16/01Los Angeles Times, 9/15/01more]

Sept 20, 2001: Several 9/11 hijackers later mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report turn up alive. "Five of the alleged hijackers have emerged, alive, innocent and astonished to see their names and photographs appearing on satellite television...The hijackers were using stolen identities." [quote Times of London, 9/20/01, see also BBC, 9/23/01more]

Dec 2001-Feb 2002: The US engineers the rise to power of two former Unocal Oil employees: Hamid Karzai, the interim president of Afghanistan, and Zalmay Khalizad, the US envoy. The big American bases created in the Afghan war are identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline. [Chicago Tribune, 3/18/02more]

May 17, 2002: Dan Rather says that he and other journalists haven't been properly investigating since 9/11. He graphically describes the pressures to conform that built up after the attacks. [BBC, 5/16/02Guardian, 5/17/02more]

May 23, 2002: President Bush says he is opposed to establishing an independent commission to probe 9/11. [CBS, 5/23/02] Vice President Cheney earlier opposed any public hearings on 9/11. [CNN, 1/29/02Newsweek, 2/4/02more]

May 30, 2002: FBI Agent Wright formally accuses the FBI of deliberately curtailing investigations that might have prevented 9/11. He is threatened with retribution if he talks to Congress about this. [Fox News/Reuters, 5/30/02more

July 22, 2004: The 9/11 Commission Report is published. It fails to mention that a year before the attacks a secret Pentagon project had identified four 9/11 hijackers, including leader Mohamed Atta. The Commission spokesperson initially states members were not informed of this, but later acknowledges they were. [New York Times, 8/11/05more]

2004 - 2005: A growing number of top government officials and public leaders express disbelief in the official story of 9/11. 100 prominent leaders and 40 9/11 family members sign a statement calling for an unbiased inquiry into evidence suggesting high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the attacks to occur. [Various Publications

Aug 9, 2006: A book by 9/11 Commission chairmen Kean and Hamilton outlines repeated deceptions by the Pentagon and FAA, including the timelines of Flights 77 and 93. CNN News: "The fact that the government would ... perpetuate the lie suggests that we need a full investigation of what is going on." [CNN, 8/9/06 MSNBC/AP, 8/4/06more]

2006-2011: Over 50 senior government officials, 100 respected professors, and 1,500 architects and engineers criticize The 9/11 Commission Report as flawed, and call for a new, independent investigation. [OfficialsProfessorsArchitects]

And here is 60 pages worth of examples, all sourced and fact-checked by established media.

Why have these stories not been more widely reported, even among the so-called alternative press? Project Censored published an excellent investigative report looking into this issue of media censorship. Looking at a dozen news-worthy stories as case studies (including stories on 9/11) that were either not covered by the alternative press or were covered poorly, they examine why even much of the alternative press suffers from the same "propaganda model" that affects larger media conglomerates. "The propaganda model of news" that Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky outlined goes a long way to explain the abject moral and professional failure of most media to put their journalist principles ahead of political expediency.

Journalists can safely report on the above stories in isolation, but present them in their entirety and the "flak filter" that keeps other journalists in check will quickly have you branded a "conspiracy theorist," one of the most toxic and effective means of ensuring that self-censorship remains the norm.

If journalists did put all these dozens of mainstream verified stories together into a single narrative (something any journalist is physically capable of doing) it would be quite clear to their readers that questioning the official story and demanding a new investigation is more than a valid, rational, and respectable response to this information.

In fact, a number of the 9/11 Commissioners and other prominent government officials themselves have made statements claiming they don’t believe the government’s description of events and believe another investigation is necessary. But of course, these (obviously newsworthy) stories haven't been widely reported either.

All that said, many courageous journalists *have* stuck their neck out to cover this subject with greater scrutiny, and I applaud their decision to do so. In writing this article, it is my hope that the reader will come to respect this decision and see the value in it as well. I hope you'll come to see that reporting honestly on all sides of a story, no matter how taboo or politically costly, is the principled position that all media should be taking, if our media was not beholden to so many conflicting interests.  Beyond that, I hope you will go a step further to do what you can to create some more breathing room in our culture for uncomfortable but necessary discussion.

A society which values the principles of democracy and freedom of the press should welcome such discussion. It should also be the first to defend this speech when it is under attack.


jhawkinsf 5 years, 9 months ago

Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy and Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln. Coincidence? I think not.

RoeDapple 5 years, 9 months ago

Could RoeDy's House of Paranoia interest you in a bunker . . perhaps?

tribalzendancer 5 years, 9 months ago

You guys are hilarious. But you really should read the article before you make assumptions. I actually recently wrote an article about how anyone that doesn't write an article implicitly acknowledging the official story is immediately thrown in with the other extreme as a conspiracy kook who also believes the moon landing was faked and every other ridiculous pop-culture fantasy.

Seriously, read the article. Put on your grown-up thinking hat for one second and don't jump to conclusions. ;)

kansanbygrace 5 years, 9 months ago

Reading these responses makes me laugh.

A great number of sources, from all over the spectrum, have information which has been swept aside casually without an in-depth investigation, or, sometimes, just ridiculed off the cuff.

A great number of people close to the situation say the "official" report is sketchy and implausible.

A guy says...."I thought journalists investigated stuff like this"

and the natives say "You're crazy to want those obviously inconsistent and incompatible reports investigated."

They must think this report is the most perfect piece of work government has ever done.
Yeh, Dick and George, for a brief sparkling moment, had a "commission" that emitted perfection.

----- I BELEEEEEVE! cried the townspeople---I BELEEEEVE!

I'd like to know more.

RoeDapple 5 years, 9 months ago

Now that there was funny, I don't care what they say . . . .

jonas_opines 5 years, 9 months ago

I'm usually somewhat hesitant to even respond at any length to things like this, because any effort I put into it is likely a waste of time. I suspect that's why, when this stuff is brought up, you get mostly one-line smartastic answers, because if you truly believe that the government, at the top levels, consists of pure psycho and sociopaths that would murder that many citizens for . . . whatever hell reason you think that they would do so, then you've likely made up your mind on quite a number of things, and are probably not likely to change it.

But, for giggles and because I'm sitting here waiting for my wife to come home, I'll point out a couple of potential possibilities for some of the items on the list, other than a large conspiracy to do . . . whatever it is you think they did this to do.

One: The warnings. It is very easy, almost 11 years after the fact, to go back and pull references on unclassified documents to show how they were warned, and warned and warned, about the attacks before they took place. I have no doubt that those warnings existed. But what gets lost in pulling those singular reports out is the hundreds, perhaps Thousands, of other intelligence reports that fly in at all times, warning analysts of all of the potential threats that may (or may not) be developing at any given point in time. I would, as a person currently working in sales, liken it to following leads. At any time I have a database of over 1000 contacts to work through. To analyze, if you will. Based on my contacts, my understanding of each of them, conversations, etc., I narrow those down to leads. Some leads I pursue more than others, because I think they're more worth following up on. Some I don't, because they seem less credible. Am I wrong sometimes? Yes. Sometimes ones that seemed sure things fizzle out. Sometimes ones that I had moved to inactive, two months later, suddenly generate an opportunity. The CIA/NSA/FBI everything else is staffed with humans. Humans that can make mistakes, and that can succumb to pressure, etc. I find it quite credible that there was some pressure to back off Bin Laden, for the same reason that his family was shipped out quick. Because they're an important, influential family in one of our major (cough) allies (oil providers) in the region, and it would have been embarrassing for them to be dragged through the mud. But that's not collusion. That's just politics. Leading to:

jonas_opines 5 years, 9 months ago

Point Two: The cover up. Do I believe that there was a cover up in the events leading up to and including the attacks on 9/11? Hell yes I do. Do I believe that cover up is to hide collusion? Well, I guess that’s one possibility. But personally, I find another to be a little more likely, based on how other things (Watergate, Monicagate, whatever) get covered up. Because they’re embarrassing, and politically lethal. If that’s not clear, I’ll rephrase. Because the government screwed up, catastrophically. You’ve shown us the links. They were warned, over and over again, and they didn’t act on it enough to prevent it. And anyone can sift out those warnings, which taken without the context of how many warnings they receive, will make them look like incompetents that caused the death of lots of people, or worse, that they wanted it to happen. That goes past political suicide to approaching political genocide, and I have No doubt that all of those government employees and appointees, who want to keep their jobs, don’t want their bosses (us), to know about how badly they screwed up. The same way the average employee doesn’t want his boss to know that he forgot to turn that paperwork that cost their company a $100,000 contract, and so erases their emails, and shoves that file into their drawer, never to be seen again.

jonas_opines 5 years, 9 months ago

The bottom line, as I personally see it, is this (other than the points made by the author in the link linked above. The government does not appear to be all that effective at doing much of anything. It can’t manage its finances, it often can’t pass legislation (keep in mind that there was a bitterly gridlocked, power-split, angry status in the months leading up to the attacks, after the controversy surrounding Bush’s win in 2000. To think that any mechanism of that organism, that screws up so much, and usually so visibly, could orchestrate a conspiracy of that magnitude, keeping charge of our very diverse media, pulling the wool over hundreds of million pairs of eyes, and the truth Still has not come out about it . . . yeah, I admit that I have difficulty buying that.

But again, if you’re going to believe then you’re going to believe. One of the people I know on Facebook, who wakes up each morning muttering about the evils of the tyrannical Government (Austrian economics type of guy), posted something about 9/11 last year, saying how he thought the government was behind it. I basically said the same thing in that last paragraph, and he argued about conspiracies etc, and then eventually posted, in another status: “The government sucks at everything but being evil.” Which is a faith-based statement, as far as I’m concerned, and that level of illogic is ultimately unapproachable.

Anyway, my wife just came home, so I’m off to make dinner. Watch out for the bogeymen.

Terry Sexton 5 years, 9 months ago

You iz an insightful sumbi*ch. What's for dinner?

jonas_opines 5 years, 9 months ago

Originally? Spaghetti with meatballs, but it would up being too late (I'm in North Carolina now), so it was tacos instead. Spaghetti tomorrow.

/assuming, of course, I don't fall prey to any massive murderous government conspiracies in the interim.

tribalzendancer 5 years, 9 months ago

Since you were the first person to write an intelligent response to this article, I'd like to ask where in this article that I said "9/11 was an inside job"? The points you were making in your comments were all directed at proving that these news stories about intelligence failures don't imply the government was in on it. But where did I say it was? To me they look like intelligence failures as well.

That's what is so funny to me about all these responses, and which I was thoroughly expecting. No one actually read what I wrote. They're responding to what they imagined I'm saying or implying, or they did not even read the article.

They are responses to a caricature of 9/11 truthers, to an image they have formed in their head about what they think, and of course this image is exactly uniform and says the same thing every time: "9/11 was an inside job." Yada yada.

The sad truth is, discussion on this topic is so extremely polarized and black and white that you can't even talk about it anymore. Either you accept the official story or people automatically assume that you must believe the government planned the whole thing. If you don't agree with the former, you must be implying the latter, everyone assumes.

If you look closely, this was my conclusion: "If journalists did put all these dozens of mainstream verified stories together into a single narrative (something any journalist is physically capable of doing) it would be quite clear to their readers that questioning the official story and demanding a new investigation is more than a valid, rational, and respectable response to this information.

In fact, a number of the 9/11 Commissioners and other prominent government officials themselves have made statements claiming they don’t believe the government’s description of events and believe another investigation is necessary. But of course, these (obviously newsworthy) stories haven't been widely reported either."

So my conclusion is: calling for a new investigation is a respectable and reasonable response to the information I sourced to, which is over 60 pages of news stories sourced from mainstream outlets. And that journalists have a responsibility to report on these stories with the same repetition and saturation as they cover any number of Hollywood scandals. The reason why people haven't heard this stories is because they are usually reported once, they are not picked up on by all the major media at the same time, and are usually separated by months and years at a time.

tribalzendancer 5 years, 9 months ago

In any case, calling for a new investigation doesn't imply inside job. It implies just what it says, that 9/11 deserves a new investigation after so many questions remain unanswered. Don't take my word for it. If you think it's nuts, then you also must think the 9/11 commission itself is nuts, as most of them have criticized their own report and said a new investigation would be helpful. Many government officials have said as much as well.

See this: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/the-co-chair-of-the-congressional-inquiry-into-911-and-former-head-of-the-senate-intelligence-committee-calls-for-a-new-911-investigation.html

and this: http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

That's the funny thing - people don't even want to listen to what people write anymore these days. They read the title, then filter any buzz words they read through their existing opinions and previous discussions they've had on the subject, and this allows them to neatly fit the article into one of a few prepackaged categories. This gives them all the assumptions they need to know what this article must be advocating, and then they respond with whatever response they've previously deployed when encountering said topic.

I'll give people credit, this process of judgement - to filter, compare against existing knowledge, categorize and respond appropriately to familiar sets of data is a convenience the mind uses to sort information. To genuinely stay alert and listen to what a speaker is actually saying, with an intention to understand, takes a lot more mental attention. And sure, we're heard it all before? We know what this guy is going to say. Same old story different day.

That is what's unfortunate about this topic. It is essentially over as everyone has made up their mind already, and I'll admit, the 9/11 truth movement's lack of discipline and penchant for jumping to conclusions and promoting flimsy evidence has destroyed the credibility of any position that is remotely critical.

It would seem it's impossible to discuss this topic anymore, because people are responding to the images they've already formed in their mind rather than what is actually being delivered.

jonas_opines 5 years, 9 months ago

"the 9/11 truth movement's lack of discipline and penchant for jumping to conclusions and promoting flimsy evidence has destroyed the credibility of any position that is remotely critical."


Ultimately, not a single point of what I posted changes one iota, whether we're talking about government collusion or government incompetence. Or, whatever it is that you're actually trying to say.

So, if you're suggesting, then, that there needs to be something further in terms of investigating the government's story, then why don't you Define the government's story? Because, to be honest, other than a bunch of pissed off islamic extremists crashed a bunch of planes into a building, there really hasn't been all that much of a grand narrative concerning events. You make mention of a few claims made, at one point, about events, knowledge, etc, and then suggest that they're false or bear further investigation, but nothing further.

So please, what IS the government story, and what part of it do you find to be false. Define your terms. When you don't offer anything but a vague, poorly tied narrative, people will fill it, as you point out, with preconceptions.

tribalzendancer 5 years, 9 months ago

The official story is that all the relevant questions were answered. We know exactly what happened and who was to blame and our government acted bravely but poorly, told the truth honestly, and every war in the post 9/11 world is now justified because of it.

And yet, dozens of government officials and many other patriotic, conservative professionals want a new investigation. Unfortunately, the people commenting on this thread are simply uninformed, because they falsely assume that if they don't see it on TV 24/7 then it must not be true, or there must not be anything serious worth knowing that they don't know.

"The truth would come out," they say, but the truth has come out. Enough truth has come out to undo the official myth. Enough respectable military, government officials have spoken out, accused the government of obstruction of justice, of lying, of covering up the whole truth - enough to fully justify a new investigation and to make the open ridicule of these people utterly shameful.

But see, the conservatives on this thread think this is a partisan issue. They believe that conservatives don't challenge their government. That criticism of the 9/11 commission is this looney liberal conspiracy issue. That is their ignorance speaking. They would feel like idiots if they actually did a little research and read through the long list of veterans and republicans who have called for a new investigation. That's what's sad. Total, blind ignorance of this fact.

So, here's my references to back this up: http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070922_seven_cia_veterans_c.htm (Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report)

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/the-co-chair-of-the-congressional-inquiry-into-911-and-former-head-of-the-senate-intelligence-committee-calls-for-a-new-911-investigation.html (Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry Into 9/11 – and Former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee – Calls for a New 9/11 Investigation *and many others)

Filling in the void so that others don't fill it with preconceptions is not my job. Needing to have everything rapped up in a neat little bow is a sign of simple thinking. If their world is turned upside down by information that contradicts it, it may be a gut instinct to want to fill it with a narrative that's equally conclusive. But reality won't always give you that. Sometimes you just have to say "we don't know." We can't make any conclusions yet. Most people can't stand that though. They can't handle uncertainty. Well, I'm sorry for those people. But seeing that extremely highly qualified people in our own government can handle this type of uncertainty, I'd rather people just get comfortable with that rather than pander to it. :)

tribalzendancer 5 years, 9 months ago

If it's not clear already, the purpose of this article was to establish one point and one point only - that journalists have a duty to report on these other stories which have not gotten proper exposure in the media. Maybe I'll have to write a new article that focuses more specifically on one legitimate news story that has been totally ignored (by the 24/7 news blitz), since it has been reported by a few news organizations at least once, but not nearly enough since apparently no one is aware of it.

That story is the one referenced here: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/the-co-chair-of-the-congressional-inquiry-into-911-and-former-head-of-the-senate-intelligence-committee-calls-for-a-new-911-investigation.html

That dozens of government officials have called for a new investigation. This should be news! Why has the Journal World not reported on this? Check the link. There is a long list of people who have called for a new investigation. These are high-ranking officials, the sort of officials that get interviewed and get media coverage when they speak. And yet, hardly anyone knows about this because journalists haven't widely reported on it.

That was the point of this article.

RoeDapple 5 years, 9 months ago

"Why has the Journal World not reported on this?"

Umm, because the LJWorld is a local news source?

classclown 5 years, 9 months ago

Classic quote from the page snap linked to.

"Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid."

That can also be said of most blogs here and certainly with reading the comment sections of several articles. Especially those of a political nature.

50YearResident 5 years, 9 months ago

Don't forget, President George Bush vavated Washinton DC to read "My Pet Goat" to a bunch of grade school kids. Far away from any possible repercussions from the disaster,

Flap Doodle 5 years, 9 months ago

Now we just need a blog about chemtrails and reptoids to complete the whack-a-doodle starter set.

RoeDapple 5 years, 9 months ago

"No one actually read what I wrote"

BS. I read it, then read it again. And I've read it since day 1, or 9/11 in this instance. Conspiracy theorists are a dime a dozen, you probably have stacks of research on this crap along with Kennedy, Moon Landing and Bigfoot sightings. Go pedal your lunacy elsewhere.

(Besides, I'm up to my ears in this Mayan Apocalypse. Lots to do in these last 4 months!)


tribalzendancer 5 years, 9 months ago

Then you would know that I did not make any mention of conspiracy theories. See my comment above.

Aaron Carpenter 5 years, 9 months ago

I do not live in a tin foil teepee, nor do i have 50 years of rice and beans hidden. I will tell you that I know people in very high ranking offices in D.C, and elsewhere that share many of these same concerns and questions. The financial transactions are the most alarming, and if anyone were to look into that they would find bonds in excess of 100's of millions that were to expire the next day…….just look, educate yourself, then confirm or deny, which is o.k.

riverdrifter 5 years, 9 months ago

"bonds in excess of 100's of millions that were to expire the next day……"

This happens every single business day of the year.


Commenting has been disabled for this item.