9-11 and the Crisis on Wall Street

by Christopher Bollyn
Adding Insult to Injury:
Americans Taxpayers Forced to Support
Zionist Criminal Gang Behind 9-11

The current financial crisis in the United States involves some of the very same Zionist criminals and entities that I pointed out in my recent chapter, "The Architecture of Terror: Mapping the Israeli Network Behind 9-11."

The collapse of their criminal scams on Wall Street could result in more information coming out about the Zionist gangsters behind 9-11. Such outrageous criminal scams cannot be kept hidden for long.

The government loan of $85 thousand millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars ($85 billion) to keep afloat Maurice Greenberg's criminal operation, American International Group (A.I.G.), brings into the spotlight one of the key individuals in the Zionist criminal network behind 9-11.

Maurice Greenberg
The criminal head of A.I.G.

As I wrote in the chapter that was published in July 2008:

KROLL, GREENBERG & THE ISRAELIS

Rebuffed in 1987, the Mossad team of Malkin and Shalom didn't give up on Isser Harel's prophecy of 9-11, which meant getting the Port Authority security contract. They simply changed tack and decided to work in a less obvious manner, through dedicated and corrupt American Zionists like Jules Kroll and Maurice Greenberg. Shalom went to work for Kroll, according to the online 9/11 Encyclopedia entry for Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, the CEO of the American International Group (A.I.G.) insurance company…

In 1993, Maurice Greenberg became a partner and co-owner of Jules Kroll's company when A.I.G. bought 23 percent of Kroll. Greenberg is very close to Henry Kissinger, who became chairman of A.I.G.'s International Advisory Board in 1987.

Greenberg was deeply involved in China in the 80s, where Henry Kissinger was one of his representatives, according to the 9-11 Encyclopedia. Through the China trade, Greenberg became close to Shaul Eisenberg, the leader of the Asian section of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, and agent for the sales of sophisticated military equipment to the Chinese military, it reports. Eisenberg was also the owner of Atwell Security of Tel Aviv...

Maurice Greenberg and Jules Kroll are connected to the key players of 9-11 in so many ways that their connections would fill a book. For the purpose of this chapter, however, there are a few key connections that need to be underlined:

1. Maurice Greenberg and Jules Kroll became partners in 1993, the same year Kroll Associates "was chosen over three other companies to advise the Port Authority on a redesign of its security procedures." "We have such confidence in them that I have followed every one of their recommendations," Stanley Brezenoff, the Port Authority executive director, told the New York Times in 1994.

2. Kroll controlled security at the World Trade Center complex in 2001 and was responsible for hiring John O'Neill, the former chief of counterterrorism for the FBI, who died on 9-11, reportedly his first day on the new job.

3. Greenberg's son, Jeffrey W. Greenberg, became CEO of Marsh & McLennan (MMC) in 1999 and chairman in 2000. The first plane of 9-11 flew directly into the secure computer room of Marsh (Kroll) USA, part of Greenberg's company. Mark Wood, an eyewitness, said: "It looked like a mid-sized executive jet and the way it turned suggested it was being aimed deliberately at a target."

There is much more information about Maurice Greenberg's ties to 9-11 in "The Architecture of Terror: Mapping the Israeli Network Behind 9-11."

Source:
Bollyn, Christopher, "The Architecture of Terror: Mapping the Israeli Network Behind 9-11," July 24, 2008
http://www.bollyn.info/home/articles/911/theisraelinetworkbehind911/

*************************************

The WTC 7 Cover Up

Written by Christopher Bollyn

Tuesday, 16 September 2008

The Criminal Cover-up of the 9-11 Demolition of Larry Silverstein's WTC 7 The owner of WTC 7, Larry Silverstein, a senior Zionist leader and fund-raiser, told PBS that he decided to "pull it" before watching the tower fall. NIST's Fraudulent "Final Report on the Collapse of WTC 7" A Criminal Fraud at Taxpayer Expense By Christopher Bollyn After nearly seven years, the U.S. government (NIST) has finally released its "Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Building 7." As I expected, the NIST report is a cover up and fabrication that has wasted several years and millions of taxpayer dollars to provide a fraudulent explanation about why Larry Silverstein's 47-story WTC 7 collapsed nearly seven hours after the twin towers collapsed on 9-11. This is nothing short of criminal fraud carried out to cover up a massive crime of false flag terrorism -- at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. I have read the entire print version of NIST's "Final Report" and respond to it below. View collapse of Silverstein's tower at: http://www.libertyforlife.com/images/911/wtc7an.gif The Indian "scientist" Sivarag Shyam-Sunder (from New Delhi) and other so-called scientists from NIST desperately attempt to explain with their fraudulent fabrication how the steel-framed skyscraper owned and built by Larry Silverstein (and other Israelis) fell into its own footprint as the result of a few minor fires, while other high-rise towers, such as the Windsor building in Madrid, burned more intensely for more hours - and remained standing. S. Shyam Sunder and his pile of lies about WTC 7. The NIST team should be considered accomplices in the criminal cover-up of 9-11. The NIST study is a excellent example of what Dr. Steven Jones calls "pathological science." Pathological science starts from an unproven assumption, e.g. WTC 7 collapsed due to a few sporadic fires, and seeks to prove that this is actually what happened. Such attempts, usually government funded, rely on computer simulations in which the critical parameters are tweaked until the desired result occurs, in this case until the tower collapses. That is not science; that's fraud. For starters, I recommend reading the response to the NIST "Final Report" by John D. Wyndham, PhD (Physics). NIST accepted comments from the public on their "Final Report" through September 15, 2008. Wyndham wrote to NIST, saying: ...your results are completely speculative and have no connection with the reality of what happened to that building. You are simply “adding epicycles” to a theory based on a false premise. Dr. Wyndham concluded: Your theory, if believed, has extremely serious consequences for the steel building construction industry and society in general. For this reason, it is doubtful whether anyone will embrace it. On the contrary, there is likely to be a public reaction that will expose its falsity. In addition, a vast and growing number of citizens of this and other countries are now on the march toward a truthful and independent accounting of 9/11. Your theory lacks scientific credibility. It is certain to be repudiated by future generations if not this one. I don't intend to wait for future generations to expose this fraud. In a very similar "study" (i.e. computer manipulation), the Swedish state funded the Vinnova computer simulation of the Estonia ferry catastrophe of 1994. Scientists were chosen to participate in the Vinnova project only if they agreed beforehand to support the official version. How very scientific. The "program manager" for the fraudulent NIST study of WTC 7 is a 46-year-old named Stephen A. Cauffman from Falls Church, Virginia. I maintain that Cauffman, Sunder, and the others paid to produce the NIST study are involved in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the U.S. public about the truth of what happened to Silverstein's 47-story tower. These "scientists" should be held responsible for committing fraud using U.S. taxpayer funds to conceal the truth. Stephen A. Cauffman, "Program Manager" for NIST's Cover-Up of the WTC 7 Demolition The recently concluded Swedish state-sponsored Vinnova study is very similar to NIST's "pathological science." The Swedish report honestly admitted that it was necessary to artificially release air from the vessel in their simulation in order to reduce its buoyancy, i.e. to make the vessel sink. This shows they were unable to achieve their intended result and proves that the official version that the ferry capsized and sank without a hole in the hull is false. In both cases, Estonia and 9-11, the "scientific" government sponsored studies are conducted for only one purpose: to support the version of official lies. Talk about wasting taxpayers money! The NIST studies of 9-11 are more of the same "pathological science" in which "scientists" are paid to prove the official version of events. How utterly pathetic. Evidently, NIST prefers foreign rather than American-born scientists who might resist such backwards methodology and pathological science. WTC 7 Technical Briefing On August 26, 2008, NIST held a live webcast on their "investigation" of the collapse of WTC 7. The link to the NIST WTC website is http://wtc.nist.gov. Release of Draft Final Reports on WTC 7 for Public Comment On August 21, 2008 at 11 am EDT, NIST released the final report for public comment. The three draft final reports are: 1. Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (NCSTAR 1A) 2. Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7 (NCSTAR 1-9) 3. Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage (NCSTAR 1-9A). The draft final reports are available on the NIST WTC website, http://wtc.nist.gov. The public is invited to submit comments on the reports by any one of three methods: (1) via e-mail to wtc@nist.govThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ; (2) by fax to 301-869-6275; or (3) by regular mail. My response on the NIST final report on WTC 7 follows: To: WTC Technical Information Repository National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8611 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611 Email to: wtc@nist.govThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Date: September 15, 2008 Open Letter to NIST in Response to the "Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Building 7" PAPER BEATS STEEL? An American Protests the Fraudulent NIST Report Posing as Science To the members of the NIST Team, namely: Messrs Silvarag Shyam Sunder, Richard G. Gann, William L. Grosshandler, H.S. Lew, Richard W. Bukowski, Fahim Sadek, Frank W. Gayle, John L. Gross, Therese P. McAllister, Jason D. Averill, J. Randall Lawson, Harold E. Nelson, and Stephen A. Cauffman To Lead Investigator Silvarag Shyam Sunder, et al: I am writing in response to the August 2008 publication of NIST's "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7." You will forgive me for being rather straight forward and direct in my comments. As an independent investigator of 9-11, who has been forced to leave my home and country after being brutally attacked by undercover police and maliciously prosecuted because of my writing on the subject, I have no patience for people who willfully concoct "fairy tales" about what happened on 9-11 at taxpayer expense. I don't accept publicly-paid officials betraying the public trust and lying on the record. It was criminal for the corrupt members of the Hoffman Estates Police Dept. to commit perjury and lie about their actions when they attacked and TASERed me at my home and it every bit as criminal for you to present this pack of lies about what happened to WTC 7. A PACK OF LIES This is what I think of your "final report." Moreover, I consider it a major criminal fraud foisted on the public. You have willingly participated in a criminal fraud to cover up a major crime, for which you have been well paid – at taxpayer expense. This is inexcusable - and criminal. Having carefully read the NIST report on WTC 7, I would point out the following specific points for those readers who may have not read the report: 1. The NIST report about the "fire-induced collapse" of WTC 7, the first and only such "collapse" of a steel-framed high-rise building in history, is a mere 77 pages long. After removing the filler and repetitions, the NIST report could be pared down to less than 20 pages. 2. The report does not even mention the Windsor Tower fire of 2005, in which a similar 32-floor tower burned like a torch in Madrid, longer, hotter, and more extensively – yet remained standing. Madrid's Windsor Tower burned like a torch... for many hours at temperatures above 800 degrees Celsius... yet remained standing. 3. The report does not mention Larry Silverstein's public comment about "pulling" the building. How can you ignore Silverstein's admission that the building was "pulled," i.e. demolished? In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC 7, admitted to having "pulled" the tower before watching it fall. 4. The final report does not contain a single photo of the building on 9-11. Why does the final report omit the photographic evidence? 5. The report omits other essential information, for example, it does not even provide any dimensions or information about the "particularly large" columns, the critical columns, which NIST says failed and caused the progressive collapse leading to the "global collapse." How can you omit such important information? 6. The report ignores important evidence about WTC 7. For example, although Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. is listed as a NIST contractor who contributed to the investigation, his eyewitness report that molten metal was found at the base of WTC 7, which he reported directly to me, is not even mentioned. How can such important evidence be omitted from the report? Simply because it does not fit into your "probable collapse" scenario? 7. The final report says that WTC 7 "did not collapse due to fire-induced weakening of critical columns," which it says were NOT even exposed to temperatures above 300 degrees Celsius. It blames thermal expansion of steel beams, (ca. 75 mm, if expansion of about 5 mm/m is accepted for the 15 meter long-spans, and said beams are uniformly heated to 300 degrees C.) caused by fires fueled by paper and "ordinary office combustibles." The chain of events that led to the "global collapse" is not well explained in the report. Why would expanding steel beams cause global collapse in New York but not in Madrid – where they were exposed to much higher temperatures (800+ degrees C.) for a longer time? 8. According to the list of "Contributors to the Investigation," NIST did not consult the architect, the structural engineer, the mechanical engineer, or the general contractor who built WTC 7. What kind of building collapse report is this anyway? 9. As the report points out, "the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional actions and funding was available for this Investigation to begin." As a result, "some facts" could not be "discerned" and the final report contains "uncertainties." How convenient. All the evidence was destroyed before you began your investigation. 10. The final report rules out demolition by explosives based solely on the fact that no loud noise was heard. The use of a quiet aluminothermic reaction, e.g. Thermite, to cut critical steel columns, beams, and trusses, which is certainly indicated by the presence of the molten metal in the basement, is not even considered by NIST. 11. Under the section titled "Aspects prior to the Global Collapse," NIST notes: "A seismic signal approximately 10 seconds prior to the onset of collapse was likely due to the falling of debris from the collapse." That does not make any sense. Falling debris does not create such seismic signals, while demolition explosions in the basements to destroy the column connections to the bedrock do. Mark Loizeaux, who told me about finding "molten steel" in the basements of all three collapsed towers, also told me that he would put the explosives in the basement if he wanted to bring down such a tower. 12. The NIST report states: "The transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs) did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7." How can you possibly make such a statement, not having even seen the elements themselves? 13. The NIST report states that none of the columns that held up WTC 7 were "weakened by elevated temperatures" and that none of the columns were subjected to temperatures above 300 degrees C. So, pray tell, what made them fail? How do you explain the fact that all of the 24 core columns and the 58 perimeter columns failed at the same time allowing the building to fall straight down? Unfortunately, gentlemen, the "probable collapse sequence" in your final report about WTC 7 report is not only improbable, it is absolutely impossible. What is even worse is that you all know this. Sadly, you have conspired to present this ridiculous explanation simply to provide a cover story for the criminal demolition of WTC 7. Covering up evidence of a crime is worse than pathetic – it's criminal. Sincerely, Christopher Bollyn www.bollyn.info www.bollyn.com Sources: Bollyn, Christopher, "9/11 and the Windsor Tower Fire" February 14, 2005 http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2796