Letter to House Select Committee on Intelligence. Darryl Robert Schoon

the Office of Naval Intelligence in the US took near direct hits.

       What happened inside the buildings of the World Trade on September 11 is difficult, but not impossible to discern. The government has put a seal on the testimony gathered by the investigating 911 Commission, and instructed government employees to not speak on the matter or suffer severe penalties, but there are a number of personal testimonies posted on the internet as to what happened in those buildings that day.

       Careful reconstruction from those testimonies indicates the deliberate destruction of evidence not only by a targeted assault on the buildings, but also by targeted fires and explosions. In the event that either the hijacking failed, or the buildings were not brought down, the evidence would be destroyed by fires.

       Even more revealing would be the actions of the Federal Reserve Bank and the Securities and Exchange Commission on that day, and in the immediate aftermath. As one of many coincidences on September 11, the Federal Reserve Bank was operating its information system from its remote back-up site rather than its downtown headquarters.

       The SEC and Federal Reserve system remained unfazed by the attack on September 11. All of their systems continued to operate. The two major security trading firms had their trade data backed up on remote systems.

       Nevertheless, the Commission for the first time invoked its emergency powers under Securities Exchange Act Section 12(k) and issued several orders to ease certain regulatory restrictions temporarily.

      On the first day of the crisis, the SEC lifted “Rule 15c3-3 -Customer Protection–Reserves and Custody of Securities,” which set trading rules for certain processes. Simply, GSCC [Government Securities Clearing Corporation] was allowed to substitute securities for the physical securities destroyed during the attack.

       Subsequent to that ruling, the GSCC issued another memo expanding blind broker settlements. A “blind broker” is a mechanism for inter-dealer transactions that maintains the anonymity of both parties to the trade. The broker serves as the agent to the principals’ transactions.

       Thus the Federal Reserve and its GSCC had created a settlement environment totally void of controls and reporting – where it could substitute valid, new government securities for the mature, illegal securities, and not have to record where the bad securities came from, or where the new securities went – all because the paper for the primary brokers for US securities had been eliminated.

       This act, alone, however was inadequate to resolve the problem, because the Federal Reserve did not have enough “takers” of the new 10 year notes. Rather than simply having to match buy and sell orders, which was the essence of resolving the “fail” problem [fails occur when securities are not delivered and paid for on the date scheduled by the buyer and seller], it appears the Fed was doing more than just matching and balancing – it was pushing new notes on the market with a special auction.

       If the Federal Reserve had to cover up the clearance of $240 Billion in covert securities, they could not let the volume of capital shrink by that much in the time of a monetary crisis.

       They would have had to push excess liquidity into the market, and then phase it out for a soft landing, which is exactly what appears to have happened. In about two months, the money supply was back to where it was prior to 9/11.

       It was the rapid rotation of the securities settlement fails in the aftermath of September 11th that appears to have allowedthe Bank of New York and the Federal Reserve to engage in a securities refinancing that resulted in the American taxpayer refinancing the $240 billion originally used for the Great Ruble Scam.

       The reports published by the Federal Reserve argue that the Federal Reserve’s actions increasing the monetary supply by over $300 billion were justified to overcome operational difficulties in the financial sector.

       What appears to be the case is that the Federal Reserve imbalances reported on three consecutive days in the aftermath were largely concentrated at the Bank of New York, which is reported to represent over 90% of the imbalance, suggesting the Bank had been the recipient of massive fund transfers, and unable to send out transfers. This supposedly was due to major communication and system failures. In fact, none of the Bank of New York’s systems failed or went non-operational.

       The Bank of New York’s suspicious actions after 9/11 were noted by The Wall Street Journal: “There is every reason to believe activities in the Bank of New York in the aftermath of September 11th are worthy of suspicion….. At one point during the week after September 11, the Bank of New York publicly reported to be overdue on $100 billion in payments.”

      It is not a coincidence that the bank in question, the Bank of New York, was owned by Bruce Rappaport; the ‘familiar Swiss banker’ in whose Swiss bank account the Iran-Contra proceeds were deposited along with the $500 million Saudi-Afghanistan fund skimmed by the Reagan White House.

      The article in Veterans Today concludes: …It suggests that certain key unknown figures in the Federal Reserve may have been in collusion with key unknown figures at the Bank of New York to create a situation where $240 billion in off balance sheet securities created in 1991 as part of an official covert operation to overthrow the Soviet Union, could be cleared without publicly acknowledging their existence. [bold, mine]

      Bruce Rapport’s Bank of New York along with the Federal Reserve was at the very epicenter of the events behind 9/11. Once again, gold, money and power were at stake and the bankers provided sufficient cover for the guilty to make sure no one knew what had happened; and no one did—at least not until the document that explained 9/11, Collateral Damage, appeared on the web.

      ILLICIT POWER ILLICIT GOLD

      The source material for the allegations in Veterans Today is a remarkable 58-page document, Collateral Damage, US Covert Operations and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 attributed to “EP Heidner”.

      Heidner’s document is a covert Rosetta Stone, shedding light on the hidden world of power and intrigue; where death and destruction are considered collateral damage. Collateral Damage not only confirms the role of gold as power, it reveals the pivotal role of Barrick Gold, now the world’s largest gold mining company, in the laundering of China’s stolen gold.

      US Intelligence operations had been siphoning off the gold [China’s stolen gold] for three decades. However in 1986 Vice President George Bush took over the gold from Marcos and the gold was removed to a series of banks, notably Citibank, Chase Manhattan, Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation, UBS and Banker’s Trust, and held in a depository in Kloten, Switzerland.

      In 1992, George Bush served on the Advisory Board of Barrick Gold. The Barrick operation would create billions of dollars of paper gold by creating ‘gold derivatives’ …[and] would become an investment for nearly every gold bullion bank associated with the Marcos gold recovery [China’s stolen gold]. These banks would loan gold to Barrick, which would then sell the borrowed gold as derivatives, with the promise of replacing the borrowed gold with their gold mining operation.

       Barrick, which has no mining operations in Europe, used two refineries in Switzerland: MKS Finance S.A. and Argor-Heraeus S.A. – both on the Italian border near Milan, a few hours away from the gold depository in Zurich…The question that Barrick and other banks needed to avoid answering is: what gold was Barrick refining in Switzerland, as they have no mines in that region?

       Barrick would become a quiet gold-producing partner for a number of major banks, and its activities became subject to an FBI investigation into gold-price-fixing.