Seriously - was Wall Street attacked on 9/11?

[hedgehog]

I recall all kinds of stories about office workers helping each other escape, and about the office workers and first responders who didn't get out. It was an attack on the tallest building in the world, a symbol of Western achievement.

But - what hit did Wall Street take? And let's be clear here, by "Wall Street" we are not talking about a physical location in Manhattan but a collection of financial organizations with an inordinate influence on the world economy. A serious attack on Wall Street would most likely be a cyber attack, not something physical.

[cantbeserious]

1. Cantor Fitzgerald Was Wiped Out In the Twin Towers

eom

[Ghost Dog]

159. Yes. The lists here of tenants at the time show mostly financial corporations

and associated service companies were occupants:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_One_World_Trade_Center#Tenants_at_the_time_of_the_attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_Two_World_Trade_Center

[-none]

2. Wasn't there a lot of short selling just before the attacks?

I kinda remember there was. Somebodies made a load off of the stock market collapse caused by 9/11

[MrMickeysMom]

4. Yep...

[© COPYRIGHT, 2001, Michael C. Ruppert and FTW Publications, www.copvcia.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted or distributed for non-profit purposes only.]

FTW, October 9, 2001 - Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the "put options" on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency. Until 1997 A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker's Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard's last position at Banker's Trust (BT) was to oversee "private client relations". In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.

Krongard (re?) joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush in March of this year. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11 attacks.

[SidDithers]

113. You forgot the link to the loony conspiracy site where you got that dreck...

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html

Sid

[randys1]

153. Love that word "dreck"

especially here

[MrMickeysMom]

157. Oh, Sid... you think everyone's a loon...

I learned a long time ago that you come out of the shadows, blathering and spitting as soon as 9/11 LIHOP is mentioned.

Anyone interested in evidence of your spinning can visit in DU2's dungeon.

Go away and amuse yourself elsewhere.

[JTFrog]

194. The only evidence one will find in the archives of DU2's dungeon

is that DU2 didn't tolerate batshit crazy conspiracy theories. Whatever crawls out of the shadows of the dungeon should be redirected to DU3's Creative Speculation where all good 911 conspiracy theories and woo go to be put to rest.

Just sayin....

[BlueCaliDem]

201. Good catch, Sid!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

30. Oh yes!

[beam me up scottie]

79. No, that is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that blames the Jews for 9/11.

It was debunked:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

[Ed Suspicious]

3. The World Trade Center was, if I'm not mistaken sort of at the heart of Wall Street physically and

metaphorically.

[starroute]

18. They're actually about a mile apart

The World Trade Center is the box in pink. Wall Street is below it and to the right, over near the East River.

[Ed Suspicious]

19. Thanks.

[leftynyc]

108. What a weird map

Wall Street is perpendicular to Broadway which is right across from where the South Tower was (we're talking a couple of blocks, certainly less than 1/4 mile). Just look where the Stock Exchange is. Yes, Wall Street runs to the East River but it starts on Broadway and the stock exchange is one block off Broadway - no place near the East River. Whoever told you it was a mile away from the towers was lying. I wouldn't call 9/11 an attack on Wall Street but it's the only time the exchange was ever closed 4 days in a row.

[starroute]

111. A tourist site says it's one mile

No doubt that's the walking distance and not as the crow flies. But the WTC site is several blocks north of where where Wall Street meets Broadway and a couple of long blocks west of Broadway itself. Going by eye, it might be closer to half a mile than a mile -- but as these things are measured in Manhattan, it's not within the financial district.

[leftynyc]

114. Yes - it is the financial district

That's why the World Financial Center - which is across the Westside Highway on the OTHER side - is named that way and is actually farther away than the Stock Exchange. That tourist site is wrong and not as the crow flies - I'd walked that route every single work day for 7 years. If it's even a half mile from where the south tower stood, I'd be surprised.

[Florencenj2point0]

179. yes thank you for a common sense reply

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. I am pretty sure you are playing dumb, but I will attempt it.

So, many Vermont constituents support Sanders. He is their Senator, after all.

So, many from NY, even those on Wall Street support the former New York Senator in part because they were her constituents, and they recall that she was excellent, and her excellence showed during 911 when she worked her ass of for the 911 victims.

[hedgehog]

6. The question was not whether or not she aided 911 victims, but whether

the financial entity "Wall Street" was among the victims.

I had forgotten about Cantor Fitzgerald but would suggest that that was an outlier.


Reference is made above to a stock market collapse after 911. Without checking with the Google, I would have said that there were some minor burps.

[Duckhunter935]

11. They were talking about the 08 crash

She injected 9/11 into that. It was not even over that. She did the same thing mr. Noun, verb and 9/11 did.

[Florencenj2point0]

182. that's right there was no collapse after 911

do you know why? Hillary and Chuck Schumer and all the democrats and republicans who helped them keep them together and get the amount of aid they needed. But mostly she helped the first responders to get the healthcare they needed.
The OP was stirring shit and it's not going to work. How petty..
The towers were at the center of the finacial district

[Duckhunter935]

188. to bad that is not what the question was about

She is almost as good as noun, verb and 9/11. Sickening in my opinion to use that for political gain.

[emulatorloo]

203. Sanders backed her up on her claims, praised her, and said he helped

BERNIE SANDERS:

"Well, I-- if I might-- I-- I-- I think the issue here is that I-- I applaud Secretary Clinton. She did. She's the senator from New York. She worked-- many of us supported you in trying to rebuild that devastation. But at the end of the day Wall Street today has enormous economic and political power. Their business model is greed and fraud. And for the sake of our economy they must-- the major banks must be broken up."


IMHO everybody is oversimplifying this.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Here

Reference is made above to a stock market collapse after 911. Without checking with the Google, I would have said that there were some minor burps.

Anticipating market chaos, panic selling and a disastrous loss of value in the wake of the attacks, the NYSE and the Nasdaq remained closed until September 17, the longest shutdown since 1933. Moreover, many trading, brokerage and other financial firms had offices in the World Trade Center and were unable to function in the wake of the tragic loss of life and collapse of both towers.

On the first day of NYSE trading after 9/11, the market fell 684 points, a 7.1% decline, setting a record for the biggest loss in exchange history for one trading day. At the close of trading that Friday, ending a week that saw the biggest losses in NYSE history, the Dow Jones was down almost 1,370 points, representing a loss of over 14%. The Standard and Poor's (S&P) index lost 11.6%. An estimated $1.4 trillion in value was lost in those five days of trading.

Major stock sell-offs hit the airline and insurance sectors as anticipated when trading resumed. Hardest hit were American Airlines and United Airlines, carriers whose planes were hijacked for the terrorist attacks.

Read more: How September 11 Affected The U.S. Stock Market http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0911/how-september-11-affected-the-u.s.-stock-market.aspx#ixzz3raKHstid
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

[hedgehog]

14. As it happened, I came across the same link you posted, and would point out the following:

"No more than one month had elapsed before the Dow Jones, the Nasdaq and the S&P had regained its pre-9/11 price levels."

Read more: How September 11 Affected The U.S. Stock Market http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0911/how-september-11-affected-the-u.s.-stock-market.aspx#ixzz3raL9qOp2
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook


This would seem to jive with my memory that any losses were temporary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. It took a while...

I also believe Greenspan cut interest rates by 125 basis points in a matter of weeks to increase liquidity...I suspect that contributed to the consequent real estate bubble.

[bettyellen]

50. The GDP for New York City was estimated to have declined by $30.3 billion the year following 9/11

340K jobs were lost in the weeks after 9/11.

We were talking about NYers- which is not the same as the 1%. Get it straight.

[hedgehog]

69. But I think when the reference "Wall Street" is used, it specifically

means the 1%.

[Florencenj2point0]

183. you think everyone who works on Wall street is part of the 1%?

Even the people in the company cafeteria? How about office assistants and the people at the reception desk...low level managers?

[hedgehog]

184. Not everyone associated or dependent on Wall Street firms is part of "Wall Street"

Not unless they're the ones holding my mortgage!

[bettyellen]

20. We lost hundred of businesses to NJ almost immediately. An entire new financial center emerged in

Jersey City to house the hundreds of firms who lost their offices that day. In addition, the area below Canal Street went through a tremendous decline as well. I know more than a few people who lost their livelihoods over that. Anyone who was employed in the tourist and service industries (city wide) also took a huge hit.
I know people want to think it was only about the lives lost, but there were long lasting negative impacts city wide for quite a few years. Sorry if people find it unpalatable to discuss, but it was the reality.
And honestly this idea that everyone who works on Wall St is the 1% is ridiculous. That's ignoring 98% of the cube rats who are just getting by.

[TM99]

28. Losing jobs may have been a consequence

but it was not the stated goal of 9/11 on evidence.

Yes, NYC was financially hard hit, but as you even point out here, not all who work on Wall Street are the 1% and other job sectors were impacted as well.

Clinton specifically answered Sanders point with regards to the 1% of Wall Street funding her campaign by comparing 9/11 to Wall Street. That just doesn't fly in the face of all the facts.

It was an attempt to score some political points that has failed and may back-fire badly upon her.

[bettyellen]

32. they chose WTC as a symbol of international commerce to disrupt. this was oft discussed

and I am kind of shocked people are ignorant to that, or angry that it would ever be discussed. I understood that her saying 60% of her donors were women and that she had a he base in NYC, was to say there are plenty other of reasons people support her.
I think her point got completely lost because people seem more concerned about (exploiting the) optics than the reality we faced here. More industries than not were effected here, more lives.
And we were not behind the nationwide drumbeat for war, yet seem to be resented for the war too. Fuck that.

[TM99]

38. No actually they didn't.

I already provided the proof and link to it that states otherwise.

The only one who attempted an 'optics' moment was Clinton when she gave this bogus answer.

Strawman. I don't see anyone including myself saying that NYC is behind the drumbeating for the Iraq War. Some Clinton supporters attempt to spin her support for the resolution by saying that she was supporting her constituents but that is disingenuous for reasons we agree upon.

[bettyellen]

42. The GDP for New York City was estimated to have declined by $30.3 billion the year following 9/11

I know it's hard for you to accept, but 340K jobs were lost within 3 months. Yes, it was a deliberate attack on America's financial center.
I'm getting the idea that a lot of Sanders fans are in deep denial- perhaps because they think that this was fundamentally a good thing to attack? I'm starting to feel that way, with all these denials.

[TM99]

48. You aren't getting this are you.

We have actual statement on record that gave the reasons as stated and it was not to devastate our economy or to attack America's financial center. It was to maximize the number of civilians murdered at a high profile & very visible target.

That there was a financial impact is not disputed but it was not the reason for the attack. This is a fallacy, and you can make it about Sanders supporters like everyone else here attempts to do if you would like.

But, the reality is what it is. There is zero justification or rationalization for her comments. They were Republican lite pandering after the Paris attacks last night.

[R B Garr]

63. OMG, the high profile targets were chosen because

they were financial centers. The Pentagon had no civilians because it's --- the Pentagon! You make no sense. They chose symbolic targets.of the US/Western world.

She just responded to his Wall Street smears. That's all he talks about.... Wall Street, Wall Street, Wall Street! So she answers him back, and she gets smeared for bringing up...Wall Street, lol. Its really sick.

[A HERETIC I AM]

91. Ummmm...plenty of "civilians" work in the Pentagon.

Thousands, even.

Not everyone that works there wears a uniform or is a member of the Armed Services.

[R B Garr]

95. Sigh. The Pentagon was hit for its symbolism.

There were about 100 people killed at the Pentagon. If civilians were the sole target, there were many more areas where the terrorists could have killed more civilians. They chose hits on symbolic US structures.

[R B Garr]

99. For fucks sake yourself. Civilians are not a target

at the Pentagon. Terrorists planning an attack on the Pentagon weren't thinking, Hey let's get civilians at the Pentagon. Duh.

[R B Garr]

107. Hilarious!! Go back and read post 48 which

Is what I was responding to. Hint: the.part about maximizing the murder of civilians. If you want to maximize murdering civilians, you don't target the fucking Pentagon. That is a symbolic place representing the Military Industrial Complex. If you want to murder civilians they could have crashed into apartment/train stations and killed thousands. A hundred or so were killed at the Pentagon.

So you're the one who can't admit a mistake. Nice try, but it's laughable how the Hillary haters now want to own/redefine everything about 9/11 to malign Clinton because of one brief debate comment. So phony.

[R B Garr]

136. LMAO, people who work at the Pentagon are Federal employees.

I have family who worked in the Federal government --- government jobs. If they were bombed/killed in a terrorist attack, it would not be described as "targeting civilians". They are working as Federal/Government employees.

This is seriously ridiculous, and has been.. The Pentagon wad targeted because of the symbolism to the Military Industrial Complex. It was not targeted because of civilians which is what I responded to. Lol.

You might want to check out Skinner's post below in this thread. You don't get to rewrite history. Sorry.

[LiberalAndProud]

143. Postal workerss aren't military either.

It's only my opinion, but I believe you're making an ass of yourself.

[R B Garr]

148. Whats asinine is to say the Pentagon was hit

because of civilians. Thats truly what is laughable in a sad way.

[LiberalAndProud]

155. That's not what I understood the poster to say.

Certainly I doubt very much that terrorists much care about the employment status of those they have managed to murder.

Your interpretation of the poster's meaning is very different from mine. It might almost make a person think that one of us is being deliberately obtuse.

[R B Garr]

164. Uh huh.

[R B Garr]

165. Good Lord! This is ridiculous. CIA might not be active

duty military, but they are Federal government employees.
There are no civilians at the Pentagon. It's a government structure at the highest level of the MIC in our nation and wasn't attacked to kill civilians!

Seriously, a very simple common sense comment turns into this kind of irrational mindfuck just to malign 9/11 now because of a debate comment.

And I don't get to tell you what kind of animal I equate you to or my post will be hidden. Must be nice. Enjoy

If you think the CIA building or the Pentagon is a civilian target...well, that looks like where the misunderstanding started. You can call them whatever you like, as well.

[R B Garr]

169. Yet YOU are the one who responded to me first

and continues to act confused and then started calling me animal names about a simple comment/observation that I responded to in this thread. Your entire involvement in this has been off the rails and inappropriate. What kind of person does that make you. I can't respond as you do because my post will be hidden.

It was already clear some time back that you misunderstood from the beginning, but it was you who refused to acknowledge that the Pentagon is not a civilian target, which is the comment I referred to. There are FEDERAL EMPLOYEES there, so they represent the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. The Pentagon represents the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.

If Secret Service agents are attacked on the job, it's not going to be described as "civilian" deaths.

ALL this was clear long ago, but all this is just so you can start with inane personal insults. That was obviously your goal. I've just made a note of it.

[R B Garr]

186. Then it's obvious what we both meant, so quit

Bullying me and calling me names and calling me a liar when it's obvious I am neither.

Follow the logic, even your own. The Pentagon was NOT targeted as a civilian target; therefore, it's a government target. The Americans there represented the government by their presence. They were not there as civilians. They had some level of clearance to be there. They were not civilians.

I guess we can agree to laugh at each other as I have family in Federal service, and would never consider them to be civilian targets if they were bombed at their work. My stepdad was also at the Pentagon, but he was active duty military. The Pentagon is a government target. Terrorists are not targeting it for civilians because there are no civilians there (see above).

[R B Garr]

287. LMAO, oh my God, your ego is not my problem.

YOU posted to me first now you call me a troll.

I can't call you names or my post would be hidden.

Its fucking obvious that IN THE CONTEXT of the post that I responded to, it was obvious that the Pentagon is not a civilian target. You want a pathetic bloodbath because I didn't type "per se" or "generally speaking", after saying there are no civilians at the Pentagon. There are no civilian targets at the Pentagon because they are government employees. It is NOT a civilian target. Duh.

Again, we can agree to laugh at each other. You can call your CIA family civilians. I DON'T. End of story. I would never refer to my Fed employee family as civilians. It would never occur to me. Hence a difference.. just deal with it and move on.

Thank you.

[cleanhippie]

170. "There are no civilians at the Pentagon." Well, that is 100% WRONG!

Even though another poster has been trying to tell you that over and over, you keep refusing to accept the verifiable fact that there ARE civilians that work at the Pentagon. Thousands of them do. Everyday.


Why so obtuse?

[R B Garr]

171. They are Federal employees. They represent the

United States government in their employment. The Pentagon represents the Military Industrial Complex. It is not a civilian target. Sorry, it's just not.

[cleanhippie]

172. Yes, SOME are Federal Employess, but they are still CIVILIANS.

This concept is not difficult to grasp. You are being intentionally obtuse. Admit you were wrong and move on.

[R B Garr]

173. Obviously you didn't read the post I responded to

Post 48, but you sure know you want to jump in with base personal accusations.

No one in their right.mind except for message board games would call a hit on the Pentagon a hit on "civilians". LOL

[cleanhippie]

174. I read the post where you wrote "There are no civilians at the Pentagon." That is 100% wrong.

Your factually incorrect statement on there being no civilians at the Pentagon is the only thing I'm addressing here.


Why is it so difficult for you to admit that you were wrong when you posted

There are no civilians at the Pentagon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=820585

Admit that you were wrong and move on.

[R B Garr]

176. Admit you didn't read the post.I responded to

and just want to jump in to personally insult me.

The Americans working at the Pentagon represent the United States Government as Federal employees. Admit that.

[cleanhippie]

177. Asking why you refuse to admit that you made a false statement isn't personally attacking you.

I already said that "Yes, some of them are Federal employees (and some are not), but they are ALL Civilians."

Why is it so difficult for you to admit you are wrong? The longer you drag this out, the sillier you look.

Just admit that you were wrong and move on.

[R B Garr]

180. Admit that you still didn't read post 48

Last edited Tue Nov 17, 2015, 01:38 PM - Edit history (1)

which is what I responded to about civilian targets. The Pentagon is not a civilian target. The Federal employees that work there represent the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. Admit that. Its not difficult.

Seriously, 9/11 is settled history, so you are the ones looking silly to rewrite it. Very silly. The Pentagon is not a civilian target. About a hundred people were killed there. There were much more target rich CIVILIAN targets.

I know many people and family who work in Federal service. If they wre bombed at work in a government building, I would not consider them to be targeted as civilians. Obviously not everyone is active duty military who works around the MIC. Duh. But they are not bombed as civilians if a government building.is targeted.

I predict you will end this with lame personal insults which is how you started.

edits,because phone typing

[cleanhippie]

181. Post #48 is irrelevant, I'm talking about your factually wrong statement and nothing more.

Your factually incorrect statement on there being no civilians at the Pentagon is the only thing I'm addressing here.


Why is it so difficult for you to admit that you were wrong when you posted

There are no civilians at the Pentagon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=820585

Admit that you were wrong and move on.

[R B Garr]

189. LMAO, at least you admit you can't be bothered

to read for content. You just want to insult just like I predicted.

[cleanhippie]

192. You can pretend your statement of "There are no civilians at the Pentagon" is not the issue here.

But the fact that you said it and are 100% wrong about it will never change.

I'm never amazed at the contortions some will put themselves thorough in order to avoid admitting being wrong.



Apparently in your reality, there are no civilians at the Pentagon, despite the thousands of them that work there everyday.



Good luck with that, and have a nice day!

[R B Garr]

199. You are the laughable one. Look at your non-content

here. You even admitted you wouldn't bother reading for content, and I predicted your personal insults.

Its amazing the contortions people will go through just to hurl phony insults.

Edits for phone screen

[cleanhippie]

202. So in your reality, no civilians work at the pentagon, and pointing out that it's false is an insult

Yes, laughable indeed.



Two things are apparent from this exchange:
You don't know what the definitions of "civilian" and "insult" are.

[R B Garr]

205. What's clear is that you refused to read

for content, which you admitted above.

Here are some more smilies:

[cleanhippie]

206. Did you state "there are no civilians at the pentagon"?

Well, are those your words or not?

[R B Garr]

209. You already stated you would not read for content,

so you obviously have other motives.

Just as I predicted.

[cleanhippie]

210. What content makes "there are no civilians at the pentagon" a true statement?

This should be good.

[R B Garr]

212. See above

For content.

[cleanhippie]

215. That's what I thought, you've got absolutely nothing.

"There are no civilians at the pentagon" is a verifiable, empirically false statement. Period.


That you cannot admit that is what makes DU so loveable! Thanks for the entertainment.

[R B Garr]

216. That's what I thought, too. You are just here to

play games. And you're not even good at it.

[cleanhippie]

217. Here to point out that your statement "there are no civilians at the pentagon" is false.

Nothing more.

Go ahead, just admit you are wrong and move on.

But you just can't do it, can you.

And with every response, you bump this thread to the top of the page where everyone gets to see you contort yourself like a pretzel trying to avoid admitting that you were wrong about "there are no civilians at the pentagon".

Classic!

[R B Garr]

221. Here to point out that you refused to

read for content so you obviously have other motives.

[cleanhippie]

223. Keep bumping the thread so everyone gets to see you contort yourself to avoid admitting you're wrong

When you said "there are no civilians at the pentagon".

This is good stuff!

[R B Garr]

224. Yes, keep bumping to show that you refused to

read for content so you're obviously here for other motives.

Just like I predicted.

BUMP

[cleanhippie]

225. Again, what content makes "there are no civilians at the pentagon" a true statement?

Go on, tell me (and everyone else reading this thread) exactly how "there are no civilians at the pentagon" is a true statement.

Don't point to another post, don't question my motives, don't project, don't deflect.

Just tell us all how "there are no civilians at the pentagon" is a true statement.




10 bucks says you won't.

[R B Garr]

227. Bump for gameplayers who refuse to

read for content and then want to be taken seriously.

[cleanhippie]

230. Ok, you win! I give up! I surrender.

You'll never be able to swallow that pride and admit you were wrong when you stated "there are no civilians at the pentagon" despite thousands of them working there everyday.

Instead you'll continue to point to some magical content that miraculously makes "there are no civilians at the pentagon" a true statement, despite the fact that thousands of them work there everyday.

Pride is a powerful thing, and it makes me feel pity to see it control someone like this.

Go on and have the last word. I've become bored with your continued denial of reality. Have a nice day.

[R B Garr]

234. You are the one with the pride. Quit projecting your

hangups onto me. I predicted you had underhanded motives for your non-content here, and you proved me right.. Thanks.

Next time read for content, and if you refuse to read something that is a precedent to a post, then don't expect to be taken seriously.

In the context of what was trying to be rewritten about 9/11 here what I said made perfect sense and I owe you nothing. The Pentagon is not a civilian target. You need the highest levels of government clearance to work there, generally speaking, and the Americans working there are only there as government workers. They are not civilian targets, as you refused to read which prompted my comment. I also told you I know people including family who work as Federal employees so I know about security clearances and what they mean.

Here are some smilies -- your obvious preference.

[cleanhippie]

237. I'll give you one last try.

Yes, I agree the the pentagon is not a "civilian target", which has nothing to do with the fact that you stated, explicitly, that "there are no civilians at the pentagon".

Even though I've never once commented on anything other than your false statement of "there are no civilians at the pentagon", you insist I have other motives. My only motive is to point out the total absurdity of such a statement. If that's playing games, you're denial of reality is complete, and I'm really bored with that.

So, just admit your statement of "there's no civilians at the pentagon" was wrong, and we can move on.

[R B Garr]

240. Since you refused to read for content it's obvious

you have other motives.

And now you're shifting your own talking points.

[cleanhippie]

243. I see that up is down in your world.

And it's impossible to have a coherent conversation with someone so bent on denying reality.

Wow.

[R B Garr]

244. What's WOW are the lame attempts to rewrite history

about 9/11 and to say civilians were targeted at the
Pentagon.

What's WOW is spending 3 hours refusing to read a referenced post for context or content and then blaming your failure on me.

[A HERETIC I AM]

226. ...

[R B Garr]

228. I can't post doggie videos from my phone

DARN it. It would be so important.

[msrizzo]

232. Really you are digging a hole.

I lived in DC area during 9/11. Parents of my kid's schoolmates died at the Pentagon. They were civilians. You are most likely correct that the Pentagon was not targeted to kill the civilians that worked there but kill them they did and maybe from the safety of wherever people were who weren't in DC or NY, the symbolism mattered very little. We cared about the people.

[cleanhippie]

235. His/her denial of the fact that civilians do work at the pentagon is stupefying.

I don't get it.

[R B Garr]

236. Please, don't be ridiculous.

Sorry to hear about the deaths, of course, and I'm serious about that. Its ridiculous to say the Pentagon was targeted to kill civilians. It was not a civilian target. I also know people in Federal service. They act as government officials at work, not civilians. Sorry to hear about your acquaintances.

[cleanhippie]

238. FFS, federal employees ARE civilians. What. The. Fuck.

Do facts and definitions have no meaning in your world?

[R B Garr]

239. LMAO, you refuse to read for content, yet you know

what you want to truncate for your own motives.

[cleanhippie]

242. Wow. Just wow.

I see a lot of this denial of reality in the Religion group, but never did I expect to see facts and definitions of words become irrelevant in such a way when discussing such a simple topic of whether civilians work at the pentagon or not.

Pro-tip: civilians DO work at the pentagon. Thousands of them in fact. Many are Federal employees, many are not, but they are all civilians. There's no coherent argument that can be made to refute this simple fact.

[R B Garr]

245. LMAO! Sorry your attack failed.

Now you're throwng religion into it.

I actually know what a Federal employee is and I would bet I know more of them than you do. That wasn't the context, but you refused to read for context so you obviously have other motives.

The Pentagon wasn't attacked as a civilian target. There are no civilians there. They are Federal employees representing the Fderal government most with high Security level clearances. They are there as government workers and were not targeted there as "civilians.'

[cleanhippie]

248. I'll just leave this here.

The Pentagon is virtually a city in itself. Approximately 23,000 employees, both military and civilian, contribute to the planning and execution of the defense of our country. These people arrive daily from Washington, D.C. and its suburbs over approximately 30 miles of access highways, including express bus lanes and one of the newest subway systems...

http://pentagontours.osd.mil/facts.jsp

[R B Garr]

249. The Pentagon was not attacked as a civilian target.

"...CONTRIBUTE TO THE PLANNING AND EXECUTION OF THE DEFENSE OF OUR COUNTRY." Pentagon is not a civilian target.

I'm still going to laugh at how you truncate what fits your obvious motives, which you admitted to as you refuse to read for content.

I know what Federal service is. The Pentagon was not targeted for civilians.

[cleanhippie]

250. You said "there are no civilians at the pentagon". That's patently untrue.

End of story.

[R B Garr]

251. You said you would not read for content

Obviously because you want to play games. Obviously.

[cleanhippie]

252. Do civilians work at the pentagon or not?

The answer is yes. That is all.

[R B Garr]

253. The Pentagon is not a civilian target.

It is a government.target. End of story.

[cleanhippie]

255. That's not in dispute, your factually wrong statement is.

You stated "There are no civilians at the pentagon".

That is 100% false. Period.

[R B Garr]

256. You refused to read for content and are now

forced to cange the context of your phony attack.

Look at you backpedaling now. Its truly laughable.

You chose not to read the post I responded to and have now lost your way. This was inevitable.

[cleanhippie]

257. Yeah, me telling you repeatedly that yiur statement is wrong is backpedaling.

You've officially gone off the rails.

[R B Garr]

258. Ah, the personal attacks -- your true motive.

I had that one pegged too.

[cleanhippie]

259. Keep telling yourself that. Seems to be what you're best at.

[R B Garr]

260. It wasn't that hard to see your motives.

You refused to read for content , so obviously you had other motives. Obviously.

[cleanhippie]

262. Obviously

[R B Garr]

263. Just as I predicted, even.

Very obvious.

[cleanhippie]

264. You know it to be true, just like you know "there are no civilians at the pentagon".

[R B Garr]

265. No, it's just like I know you refused to read the post

I responded to so it's obvious you have other motives.

Obviously.

:hi;

[cleanhippie]

266. "There are no civilians at the pentagon"

[R B Garr]

267. The Pentagon was a government target.

The Pentagon was.not targeted as a civilian target.

I.have to laugh that you.had to shift your attack.on me to acknowledge that since it was already out there way before you started your games.

[cleanhippie]

268. "There are no civilians at the pentagon"

[R B Garr]

269. The Pentagon is a government target.

The Pentagon is not a civilian target.

[cleanhippie]

270. "There are no civilians at the pentagon"

[R B Garr]

271. The Pentagon is a government target.

The Pentagon was not targeted for civilians.

Thank you for another opportunity to show that you are only here to play games since you refused to read for content the post I responded to.

Thank you again

[cleanhippie]

272. "There are no civilians at the pentagon"

[R B Garr]

274. Thanks for showing you are just here to play games

Of course, you already stated that by refusing to read for content the post I responded to, opting for smilies instead

[R B Garr]

275. The Pentagon is a government target.

Government representatives work there. It was.not picked as a civilian target.

[cleanhippie]

277. "There are no civilians at the pentagon"

[R B Garr]

278. The Pentagon is a government target.

It is not a civilian target.

[cleanhippie]

280. "There are no civilians at the pentagon"

[R B Garr]

281. Thanks for showing you are just here to play games.

I had that pegged too.

[R B Garr]

282. The Pentagon is not a civilian target.

[cleanhippie]

283. "There are no civilians at the pentagon"

[R B Garr]

284. The Pentagon is not a civilian target.

The Pentagon is a government target.

[cleanhippie]

288. There are no civilians at the pentagon"

[R B Garr]

289. The Pentagon is not a civilian target.

The Pentagon is a government target.

[R B Garr]

290. Thanks for showing you are just here to play games.

I had that pegged from the start.

[R B Garr]

285. Thanks for showing you are just here to play games.

I had that pegged from the beginning.

[R B Garr]

279. Thanks for showing you are just here to play games.

I had that pegged too.

[msrizzo]

246. Please read my response again.

I think the error you are making is equating two things that don't belong together. In fact I said you were correct that it wasn't a civilian target. It was targeted because it was the Pentagon. But government workers are civil servants, they are civilians. Government officials are civilians. Any government workers that are not in the armed services or the police force are civilians.

[R B Garr]

247. Hi, feel free to read the other responses as well

so you won't waste time with a banal and.irrelevant lecture that had nothing to do with my original response, ALL of which had to do with a response to the Pentagon being targeted because of civilians.

The Pentagon was not targeted because of civilians. Its laughable in a sad way to see the obsession to change that fact.

Psst, I know about Federal service, don't we all, but the Pentagon was not targeted because.of civilians. They are Federal employees working in a government structure. They were not targeted as civilians. Its really that simple. No lectures needed, LOL.

[bettyellen]

65. YOU are not getting the actual huge impact on hundreds of thousands of people. Not at all.

[TM99]

66. Yet, again, the impact is not the issue.

It is the false causality that Clinton and apparently you erroneously believe in.

[R B Garr]

80. No. Again no. He was smearing her with Wall Street

fund raising innuendo, and she explained where, when, and how donors from the financial sector grew to support her. She worked her ass off for her constituents, many of whom were involved in 9/11 and the aftermath.

Bettyellen is just explaining that just because Sanders smears Clinton with Wall Street and donors, they are not the 1%ers that Sanders is trying to imply all the time. Clinton is allowed to defend herself from his bogus smears.

[Florencenj2point0]

185. Get this

who gives a flying f*ck what the motivation of a lot of spoiled crazy murderers were? WTF does that have to do with anything? Is there no insane length Sanders supporters will not go to attack Secretary Clinton?

[TM99]

187. Well how about this?

If your candidate continues to make idiotic comments like equating 9/11 with her Wall Street quid pro quo, then I will call her the fuck out on it.

You don't like it? Don't read it and don't comment. See how simple that is?

[Florencenj2point0]

191. boo hoo, you have cut me to the quick.

have a great Thanksgiving and bless you and yours.

[TM99]

195. I think you will live.

[Sheepshank]

102. I clearly remember those discussions.

I also remember hearing that it was calculated by OBl to try and disrupt the financial sectors of the USA to try and completely tank the US economy as a whole. It didn't happen, although it too a very long time for any of the financial parkets to make serious gains. I don't think I will ever recapture all of the reitrement income I lost. But in the long run, OBL did not succeed in this one particular prong of his attacks.

[bettyellen]

125. I think a lot of people forgot, but I have read so many ignorant things about NYC in general the

last two days, I am really stunned. People are really showing their ugly side, but I guess anything to win- in their own minds.

[AlbertCat]

131. tank the US economy as a whole. It didn't happen,

No... not until they did it themselves and we had to bail them out.

But do tell us how Hillary saved them back then and they gave her more money for it.

[Sheepshank]

160. The stock market had to shut down

shares and stocks and trades tanked for some time after 9-11. You seriously don't remember any of this?

OBL had stated that one of the "legs" of his attak was to irreperable damage the US economy. You don't rmember that either?

I honestly don't know why this is all new to you.

[AlbertCat]

162. The stock market had to shut down

Did anyone lose everything?

I think 1929 was worse.....way worse.

[R B Garr]

35. Totally wrong. Wall Street is invoked by Sanders as the

catch-all bogey man for everything to do with Clinton fund raising, so she answered in kind. No one in their right mind would think that had anything to do with the exact street addresses of where the terrorists crashed the planes. It was all symbolic.

[bettyellen]

47. Now we have people expressing resentment NYC was "bailed out" after 9/11. Do they even think?

I am completely disgusted.

[R B Garr]

56. I'm disgusted, too. Now New York goes under the bus

because God Forbid Clinton dares to answer him back about his Wall Street smears. Its totally off the rails.

[leftynyc]

110. Disgusted NYer here also

Post #18 is even claiming that Wall Street and the Stock Exchange were a mile away from the towers and closer to the East River which is nonsense. The Bernie supporters are really getting desperate.

[R B Garr]

146. It is indeed desperate in a sick way. If it makes Clinton

look bad then 9/11 victims go under the bus. Anything to try and discredit her, no matter who or what they have to sacrifice. Sorry you have to go through this. It's very offensive.

Now someone is insinuating in another thread that Hillary is responsible for Wall Street donations --- but Patrick Moynihan was in office for the time period they mentioned. It's really just sick what is going on

[leftynyc]

149. I'm having another

conversation with someone who made the assainine claim that 9/11 had no economic impact. When I pointed out how many small businesses went under in that neighborhood due to 9/11, all of a sudden I was trying to credit Hillary with something (I can't even follow the retarded reasoning) instead of just proving the poster wrong. The Bernie supporters are getting ugly and desperate.

[R B Garr]

151. WOW, it's so incredibly sick! She answers a generalized smear in

a debate and now they want own and rewrite everything about 9/11. So incredibly sick. So now the small businesses Clinton helped as Senator go under the bus to prop up Bernie! It's very disturbing. I'm thinking they are trying to get posts hidden, too, from these conversations... careful

[leftynyc]

156. True, which is why

in every single one of my posts, I put the reason I'm embarrassing that person on display. So the people reading the alert understand where I'm coming from. If they still wish to hide, nothing I can do about that but I haven't had a comment hidden since I started using that method. I also have had my last nerve pushed by people who don't live anywhere near where a terrorist may want to hit making fun of those of us who are concerned about it. I walk through a high profile target twice a day for my commute and work 1/2 a block from another one - I can't afford to ignore the terrorists. The disgusting display of nonchalance about fellow DUers being in the line of fire is repulsive.

[R B Garr]

166. Thank you, your contributions to keep this thread

real are very much appreciated. It is shockingly repulsive to see our everyday New Yorkers maligned so they can tout a phony gotcha moment from a debate to debase New Yorkers and Clinton, all to prop up Bernie's Wall Street stump speech.

I wasn't even going to respond to this offensive thread again until I saw you commented earlier. A family member's neighbor went to New York after 9/11 as a special task force (firefighter), and he said it deeply affected him. You still walk the streets every day and don't deserve this harassment. Thanks for keeping it real.

[Florencenj2point0]

193. take heart

most of Bernie's people are not democrats or haven't voted that way in a long time. Maybe not here but on other forums they saying they will vote Green or write him in rather than vote for Hillary. Or they are just flat out republicans sicced on us by the Koch brothers. They are also a big part of his small donors squad.
So the polls are going back in Hillary's direction and we get to vote for her and work for her. Come help us out in NJ. We could use your help in the GE. She will easily win the primary here.

[hedgehog]

273. No one objects that New York City was helped with

Federal money after 911. What people are objecting to is that financial entities "too big to fail" were bailed out 7 years later, in 2008.

[bettyellen]

276. at least one idiot called the aide NYC got after 9/11 Wall St's first bailout.

Another claimed everyone here is living on the high hog, sending kids to 100K a year schools. It has gotten idiotic.

[leftynyc]

109. The entire building that housed

Deutche Bank was destroyed. Had to be taken down due to damage and asbestos. From Wikipedia:

The collapse of 2 WTC during the September 11 attacks tore a 24-story gash into the facade of the Deutsche Bank Building. Steel and concrete were sticking out of the building for months afterward. This was eventually cleaned up, but due to extensive contamination it was decided that the 39 story ruin was to be taken down. After the 9/11 attacks, netting was placed around the remains of the building. The bank maintained that the building could not be restored to habitable condition, while its insurers sought to treat the incident as recoverable damage rather than a total loss.[3] Work on the building was deferred for over two years during which the condition of the building deteriorated.

In September 2005 human remains were found on the roof.[4] In March 2006, construction workers who were removing toxic waste from the building before deconstruction found more bone fragments and remains. This prompted calls from victims' family members for another search of the building by forensic experts. In 2006, between April 7 to April 14, more than 700 human bone fragments were discovered in the ballast gravel on the roof. Workers sifted through the gravel to find more remains.

The cost of this deconstruction had steadily increased to $75 million by the Bovis Lend Lease construction company as large amounts of toxic dust associated with the collapse of the World Trade Center, asbestos, dioxin, lead, silica, quartz, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, chromium and manganese had been found in the building.[5]

[Florencenj2point0]

190. Oh my God

I had no idea. Some of Bernie's supporters here are just so nasty. I found one nice comment by a Bernie person on this thread and I thanked him.

[TM99]

8. I appreciate what she did as the Senator for NY

after 9/11. I appreciate what all elected officials then. I lost friends in that attack.

I do not appreciate her trying to conflate the 9/11 attacks with an attack on Wall Street. That was not the stated target.

...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad [Atta] from the Egyptian family [meaning the al-Qaeda Egyptian group], was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks

Those chose high visibility targets with the largest possible number of civilian causalities. They did not choose them based on the erroneous idea that they were somehow attacking the heart of American capitalism at Wall Street.

This type of hawkish revisionism and pandering will back-fire. Like many things Clinton has said recently, like the Marine fiasco, she really just doesn't need to do it. She is the obvious front-runner. Why makes such stupid mistakes?

[sabrina 1]

31. Frankly at that time, having friends right in the area of the attack, politicians were the last

thing on my mind. One of my neighbors, way out east on LI we found two weeks later, died that day.

As for politicians, they are expected to do what they can at times like that.

More important to most of us were the First Responders, many of whom died trying to save people.

But that was 15 years ago and I have to say from my memory I didn't see Wall St as a special victim, if they wanted to attack Wall St they missed their their target which is quite a distance from the Twin Towers.

[Ms. Yertle]

7. If I recall correctly,

one of Bin Laden's goals was to take down our economy. It neaarly worked.

[TM99]

10. No.

See my post above. That was not the stated goal. It really was quite simple. Two towers with a large amount of civilians that could be killed. The towers falling impacted the American psyche. It had zero to do with attacking our economy or the heart of capitalism in the US.

[jwirr]

25. Plus the towers had been attacked before. Finishing the job?

They hit two areas of our world involvement - corporations and the MIC.

[TM99]

27. Yes, that came up in the investigation

because Al Qaeda had a habit of making sure they finished a job if it was interrupted previously.

[Dem2]

13. This was my understanding as well

The references to Bin Laden attempting to take out our economic system were many after 9/11. The market took a terrible hit and a lot of infrastructure was damaged at the time, although that was short term.

[TM99]

26. Post hoc fallacy.

We don't need to speculate or make up why they were attacked when we have verbal evidence attesting to why they were in fact chosen as targets.

And while, yes, there was a financial impact, it was not a devastating blow. It did not cause either a recession or a depression. It was nothing compared to the 2008 financial melt-down.

So again, post hoc fallacy. It didn't so there is no connection between 9/11 and Wall Street as Clinton claims.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I will do this once and only once...

America has a financial center, a political center, and a cultural center...At the risk of grossly oversimplifying things Manhattan is our financial center, DC is our political center, and Hollywood is our cultural center.

[sabrina 1]

33. Regardless of any of this. How would it, even if Hillary is right, affect her taking such huge

donations from Wall St NOW, 15 years later? THAT was the question, not what happened on 9/11, which the moderator reminded her of, 'that was not the question'.

[MohRokTah]

16. World Trade Center, duh? eom

[JoePhilly]

23. Hard to believe isn't it?

They don't get the fact that the attack was on our economic and politics centers.

[MohRokTah]

57. Anything to prop up a failed campaign, I guess.

I bet they don't remember how much the stock market dropped when they finally re-opened it, either.

[sabrina 1]

36. And how does that, which happened 15 years ago, explain why Hillary is NOW taking so much money

from Wall St, and how does that money affect her policies? I believe the moderator reminded her of the ACTUAL question asked, which had zero to do with 15 years ago.

As a Senator at the time she did her job. What does that have to do with her acceptance of Wall St donations NOW?

[Cosmic Kitten]

17. Didn't you know Bin Laden hated Wall St for it's freedom!!!11!11

Jihadists are all about
destroying Casino Capitalism™

[BainsBane]

22. Look at a map

It's a couple blocks away from the WTC. The WTC was part of the financial district, as the map shows.

[hedgehog]

29. Again - "Wall Street" is not generally used to indicate a location but rather as short hand

for the stock market, big banks, insurance companies, etc.

[bettyellen]

34. It was the TRADE Center and The WFC- World Financial Center next door also closed down.

Last edited Sun Nov 15, 2015, 05:58 PM - Edit history (1)

It was a deliberate attack on our center of finances, particularly the international ones. I am amazed people do not know this.

[BainsBane]

41. Then of course it did

World Trade Center. They purposefully struck the financial heart of the nation.

[sabrina 1]

39. The question she was asked was about her huge Wall St donations NOW. The moderator reminded her

that while she travelled back 15 years to 9/11, that did not answer the question she was asked.

So maybe you can answer it? Why is she accepting so much money from Wall St, why HAS she done so and why should voters think that accepting that money won't influence her policies?

Why she brought up 9/11 is still a mystery to many people.

[BainsBane]

44. No, it wasn't about now

It was over her career. Bernie was careful to make that distinction. She is not getting millions from Wall Street now. She got those donations while she was Senator and also during her 2008 run. That money is now going almost exclusively to the GOP. Paul Krugman made that clear here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html?_r=0

To understand the politics of financial reform and regulation, we have to start by acknowledging that there was a time when Wall Street and Democrats got on just fine. Robert Rubin of Goldman Sachs became Bill Clinton’s most influential economic official; big banks had plenty of political access; and the industry by and large got what it wanted, including repeal of Glass-Steagall.

This cozy relationship was reflected in campaign contributions, with the securities industry splitting its donations more or less evenly between the parties, and hedge funds actually leaning Democratic.

But then came the financial crisis of 2008, and everything changed. . . .

But the financiers didn’t feel grateful for getting off so lightly. On the contrary, they were and remain consumed with “Obama rage.” . . .

Financial tycoons loom large among the tiny group of wealthy families that is dominating campaign finance this election cycle — a group that overwhelmingly supports Republicans. Hedge funds used to give the majority of their contributions to Democrats, but since 2010 they have flipped almost totally to the G.O.P.

As I said, this lopsided giving is an indication that Wall Street insiders take Democratic pledges to crack down on bankers’ excesses seriously. And it also means that a victorious Democrat wouldn’t owe much to the financial industry.

[bettyellen]

46. It's like they have been brainwashed to hate NYC now. Disgusting xenophobia.

Complaining about the bailout now? Fucking reprehensible.

[sabrina 1]

49. What? What ARE you talking about? We always opposed bailing out the Criminals on Wall St

after they crashed the world's economy in 2008. The revisionist history here is amazing.

Again, what did 9/11 have to do with the question Hillary was asked?

[bettyellen]

51. The topic is 9/11. Nice try. You called 08 ANOTHER BAILOUT for Wall St. It was not.

It was totally different- and GWB's fault, Obama saved the day.

The GDP for New York City was estimated to have declined by $30.3 billion, 340K jobs were lost.
We are not all the 1%, stop robotically referring to Wall St and the 1%- it;s ignorant.

[sabrina 1]

54. The topic is Hillary's answer to the question she was asked. Which had zero to do with 9/11.

Criminals should NOT be bailed out. What about their VICTIMS? Maybe YOU don't know any of the victims of the massive corruption that brought down the economy. I DO and they will NEVER recover.

I'm for breaking up these corrupt institutions, prosecuting the criminals, and restoring the regulations that once removed, CAUSED the destruction of the lives of millions of Americans and of many others globally.

Sometimes I wonder when our Party decided that the working class was no longer important.

Wall St was REWARDED hugely for their corrupt criminal behavior and the victims FORCED to bail them out, while they continue to suffer the losses incurred on them by Wall St criminals.

I see now why they get away with it, who our politicians feel more obligated to obscenely wealthy Wall St crooks than they do the people who are still suffering the results of their crimes.

They have enablers in both parties now.

[bettyellen]

58. You can't seem to separate out the 1% from average working NYers. The bailouts were very different

and it's pretty repulsive for you to try and muddy the water like that. her donor base has shifted over the years, educate yourself, for fucks sake.
It almost sounds like you think NYC deserves what happened on 9/11 because we have some evil rich people among us. Fuck that.

[sabrina 1]

64. Don't you DARE put words like that in my mouth. I was in NY that day and attempting to twist

people's CORRECT STATEMENTS about the QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED isn't going to change a single thing. I KNOW ordinary people in NYC who suffered horrendously both on 9/11 AND from the collapse of the economy which had ZERO TO DO WITH 9/11

That crash had to do with CORRUPTION of massive proportions, and it is despcable to try to conflate that greed and corruption with a tragedy that killed so many innocent people.

You are very confused, or desperately trying to use 9/11, which we NYers are sick and tired and angry about, watching politicians CYNICALLY using that awful tragedy for their own purposes. Just stop it.

And fyi, a friend of ours lost her pregnant daughter that day and will never forgive any politician who USED her daughter's and what should have been, her grandchild's death the way it continues to be used by them.

Sickening to see it still going on. My sympaties are with the victims, of 9/11.

And with the victims of Wall St's GREED which had zero to do with 9/11. Shameful to even try to excuse any of it.

[bettyellen]

81. the crash of the national economy was not the subject- as desperately as you try to confuse the

issue. People calling the aide NYC received after 9/11 the first Wall St bailout are sick.

NYC suffered a great deal in addition to the lives lost. Many here seem to think one building was the extent of it. That s very very far from the "truth".

[R B Garr]

82. None of what you typed had to do with Clinton's

answer which was based on Bernie's insinuations. BS maligned Clinton and Wall Street with no frame of reference except his now tired applause lines, and Clinton corrected him about how, where, and when her supporters came from. She is allowed to talk about her history in New York without being shouted down by people trying to score political points of their own. So take your own advise and just stop it.

And sorry to hear about your friend's daughter, but Clinton surely knew people affected by 9/11, so who are you to tell her to shut up about her experiences and outreach efforts. I see Bernie had a sympathy clip of his 9/11 thoughts on his website, so why don't you call him and tell him how disgusted you are with his obvious political ploys and demand he take it down

[sabrina 1]

89. She was asked about her huge donations from Wall St and she went all the way back 15 years

to invoke 9/11 rather than answer the question. You can't MALIGN someone who is actually doing what they are trying to HIDE from the public.

Who is funding her Super Pacs? She SAYS she opposes CU yet is taking advantage of it in the WORST WAY, by using and coordinating her campaign with Super Pacs funded by money which is protected from the public's scrutinty.

Bernie was RIGHT to press her on that.

If she had nothing to hide she would have simply answered the question, as even the moderator pointed out. She did NOT answer the question.

[R B Garr]

94. She was not asked about her "huge donations".

The exchange that sparked her answer was the result of a generalized smear by Sanders where he was insinuating there was a quid pro quo without having a specific incident as a frame of reference, so it was a generalized smear taken solely from his now well-worn applause lines about Wall Street.

The general smear was about her entire career, NOT just currently. After being smeared over what appears to have been her entire Senate career in New York -- that is the point where she answered how she did about her work after 9/11.

[OilemFirchen]

55. And the most obvious target with the most likely casualties and the greatest financial impact.

I'm guessing some of the posters here think that the World Trade Center was a conglomeration of wheat farmers and pork belly storage.

[jwirr]

24. I have a relative who was in the area and she talked about

all the dust and smoke that caused them to evacuate their building. That would have happened to Wall Street but nothing else.

[bettyellen]

37. Wow, just a little dust, huh? Unfuckingbelievable.

[sabrina 1]

40. Do you remember the question Hillary was asked? It had zero to do with 9/11 which happened

15 years ago, The question had to do with TODAY. She was reminded that she had not answered the question. Why she went back to 9/11 beats me considering the actual question.

[bettyellen]

43. Her donor base also includes many loyal NYers and women. I have no problem with that.

There are very good reasons she has their support.
Honestly, the ignorance and minimization (just some dust?!?!) of 9/11 and hostility here toward NYC is disgusting.

How dare you imply it was the 1% getting bailed out. That is beneath contempt.

[sabrina 1]

45. Of course there are good reasons, that's why she was so upset when the question was asked.

And even more importantly, she knows that the MONEY IN POLITICS is a #1 issue for the first time with a majority of Americans in this campaign, and FOR GOOD REASON.

She didn't answer the question.

Citizens United, a top issue now for a majority of voters.

No wonder she was angry.

Especially when we have a candidate who is NOT beholden to the beneficiaries of CU.

[bettyellen]

52. you are confused about her donor base then, vs her donor base now. sorry!

history matters, but it is, after all.... history.

[Florencenj2point0]

197. she was asked basically why she had so many wall street donors

she has a lot of donors who are women, 60% in fact. So far the majority of her donations are under $250. Remember only people can donate money. So do the math a lot of women who work in low paying jobs in NYC Wall Street firms donate to Hillary Clinton. Men who also work there donate to her and no doubt some rich people who really like her and trust her donate to her.

[merrily]

231. I know. Tragic, but it has nothing to do with Hillary's relationship with Goldman Sachs.

[Quixote1818]

53. Well, a Goldman Sachs trader got a paper cut on his pinky so Hillary put a Band-Aid on it.

[bettyellen]

60. WOW. Fucking disgusting.

[MohRokTah]

62. You do realize the majority of casualties on 9/11 occurred in the World Trade Center.

You also do realize that most of those who died in the World Trade Center worked in the finance industry, right?

Your joke about the deaths of people who worked in finance is really sick.

[Quixote1818]

67. Thanks for your fake outrage. nt

[MohRokTah]

70. Your sick humor is disgusting, fortunately I never need read another sick post from you. eom

[Quixote1818]

77. Sorry if it offended you but it was just a light hearted joke. No harm was meant

and I have plenty of respect for those who lost their lives on 9/11. I also will proudly vote for Hillary if she gets the nom.

[bettyellen]

73. Thanks for mocking the victims of the biggest tragedy NYC has ever had.

Good luck campaigning for whoever.

[Quixote1818]

78. As I said above, I apologize if I offended anyone. It was sarcasm

just poking fun and I will proudly support Hillary if she gets the nom.

[Florencenj2point0]

207. thank you for this nice comment

[LiberalArkie]

68. Results

On Sun Nov 15, 2015, 03:06 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Well, a Goldman Sachs trader got a paper cut on his pinky watching the news of the towers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=813449

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Making light of the death of 3000 people, most of whom were workers in the financial industry, is so over the top as to be almost unimaginable.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Nov 15, 2015, 03:14 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Is Sarcasm Dead? I am of the opinion is is definitely dead in GDP. Sad, really sad.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Unnecessary hyperbole.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post is meant as a criticism of Hillary, not so much an attempt to make light of the tragedy.

Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a silly post, but not close to being alertable.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[mcar]

83. This is one of the most disgusting posts I've ever read on DU

[leftynyc]

112. Your post is repulsive

Almost 3000 NY/NJ/CTers died that day. Minimizing what happened to downtown - it wasn't just the towers - because you wish to trash Hillary is truly, truly disgusting. Once again, the very worst thing about Bernie are his supporters.

[mopinko]

59. yes. it was.

the whole area was a mess. the wall street subway station was closed for a long time. many financial institutions had offices in the towers, not just cantor fitzgerald.

this is some really stupid hair splitting you are trying to do here.

stated reason? it was the world TRADE center. it was manhattan. it was wall street. i am sure bin laden had many things in mind with the bombing, and striking the american economy was undoubtedly one.

i have no problem w hillary's comment. it was nothing like ghooliani's chest pounding. as the senator from new york, yes, she would have had a lot of contact and done a lot of work with "wall street" to get things back on track. there is no reason she should be ashamed of that. both the broader meaning of wall street in the economy and the granular meaning of the lost jobs, the disrupted families, and yes, the dust. it wasnt the dust bunnies under your bed. it was a thick coating of nasty powdered buildings, concrete and glass and vaporized people. it smelled of death. it was a huge job to clean it up.

jeebus. short memories around here.

[TM99]

71. No just a lot of false memories

to support the candidate with a D after her name that is pandering with the use of 9/11 to justify a question about her financial contributors.

2008 bailout has NOTHING to do with 9/11. Clinton taking money from Wall Street quid pro quo has NOTHING to do with 9/11.

DU fucking exploded every time a damned Republican used 9/11 to score political points but now has collective cognitive dissonance to allow Clinton's?!

WTF is right!

[MohRokTah]

84. Second most disgusting post in this thread.

You are the one with false memories.

[TM99]

85. That you are disgusted and commenting

says it all given you posting history.

[MohRokTah]

86. You are a shining example of a Sanders supporter

Maybe now you understand why I cannot respect Sanders supporters.

[TM99]

87. Right back at you beautiful.

Perhaps you need a mirror?

[sheshe2]

92. Hey you~

On Sun Nov 15, 2015, 09:58 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You are a shining example of a Sanders supporter
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=814311

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Divisive personal and group attack.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Nov 15, 2015, 10:30 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I don't know... I'm a Sanders supporter and this feels insulting and rude?
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This whole thread is divisive. TM99 called Moh disgusting. There is nothing wrong with Moh's post. You have become a bunch of thin skinned children slinging poo and throwing tantrums when your candidate is questioned. What happened to holding a politicians feet to the fire? You had no problem doing that to Obama. Saint Bernie, not so much. Hypocritical. TM99 stated that Moh needs a mirror. I suggest they get one themselves. I am pretty sure we know who alerted on this. Leave it!
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a food fight. Let it go!
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: god grant us the patience to survive thru the primaries

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[mopinko]

118. yup

[mopinko]

90. dude, i'm a bernie supporter

but my husband's employer, a financial exchange, had an office in the tower. i went there that october.
people's lives were changed. destroyed. lots of businesses in that part of town went under. not just financial firms.
and yes, the clean up was a big deal.
i have no doubt that many long term relationships were forged in that tragedy. especially with the people who needed the senator's help. people dont forget that sort of thing. people do support you if you supported them.

it is one thing to use that event as some sort of boogie man, but it is absurd to think that anyone who utters the words is doing the same.

[TM99]

93. My ex-fiance from

college lost her father on 9/11. I lived in NYC in the west village for a year after graduate school in CT where for the 2 years previous I visited the city weekly. I love NYC, and I know intimately the tragedy of that day.

Clinton's statement is abuse of those memories. The rationalization by her supporters of these statements is specious. It is one thing to accept as you say that yes, there were relationships forged and support given. It is quite another to justify her millions of dollar speeches, her funnel quid pro quo funds, and her close ties with the 1% of Wall Street today in 2015 by invoking 9/11.

[mopinko]

100. that is just not how i see the whole thing.

those contributions are not from the companies, they are from the employees. people she has a 2-way supportive relationship with.
she has no reason to be ashamed of it. no reason not to how those relationships were formed.

and i dont buy the whole smear of the clinton foundation.

[TM99]

117. Did I mention the Clinton Foundation?

No.

Clinton's top campaign contributors are Wall Street banking executives.

That people refuse to recognize the quid pro quo involved is just a testament to our cultural narcissism. As long as it is legal, then screw the ethical questions. Money is speech now as it was in the early Renaissance.

[George II]

121. "False memories" to support a candidate? You should be ashamed of yourself, but...

....I'm sure you're not.

[George II]

120. People don't get it....

.....they didn't see family members or friends die that day.

Many of the phone lines in the metropolitan area ran through that neighborhood, ALL broadcast television transmission antennas were on the top of the WTC, subway stations collapsed, etc., etc., etc. The Holland Tunnel, used by millions of people a week was closed.

My high school, a few blocks away, was closed for a month.

People who worked to rescue others and clean up the destruction are still dying from the effects of the air down there.

It wasn't a video game, it was raw reality.

[mopinko]

141. yup.

just breathing the air was hard. the smell. omg.

[OilemFirchen]

61. Yes.

Tenants at the time of the attacks

It might be a good idea to settle on a meme: Is "Wall Street" shorthand for this country's financial sector, or is it a paved roadway?

I had thought that the answer was well-established. After all, didn't Sen. Sanders state, on several occasions, that "Wall Street" is built on fraud? I don't think he's talking asphalt, frankly.

[hedgehog]

74. But does one attack Wall Street by killing people and destroying offices,

or by introducing new regulations to protect Main Street from Wall Street?

[OilemFirchen]

76. Ask Congressman bin Laden.

It should make for an interesting conversation.

[DanTex]

72. Umm, have you ever been to NYC?

The WTC is a few blocks from Wall Street. A lot of financial firms had offices in the WTC. And WTC was not just a symbol of "Western achievement", it was a symbol of American economic strength. NYC was and continues to be the financial and economic capital of the world

Oh, and WTC was not the tallest building in the world. Not even the tallest building in the US. That would be the Sears Tower (now called the Willis Tower). But they didn't go after that one, they went after the WTC.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

88. 9/11 had NO effect on Wall Street.

[leftynyc]

115. Bullshit

You're either ignorant of the history or choose to ignore it. I truly don't give a shit which.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

123. Dubya kept blaming 9/11 for his economic failure...

Top economists said 9/11 had ZERO effect on the Stock Market. (There wasn't even much panic selling.)

However, I'm sure Camp Hillary is now going to claim she saved us all from financial ruin.

[leftynyc]

127. You simply don't have a clue

Do you have any idea how many small businesses went out of business because of 9/11? Or don't they count?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

129. Please tell us more about how Hillary failed in her economic heroics.

[leftynyc]

130. Deflection is the only way

to get yourself out of the stupid argument you tried to make. You claimed there was no economic impact from 9/11. Just admit you were wrong and I wont have to embarrass you again.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

132. Actually, I'm doing quite well baiting a Hillary supporter into defending her ridiculous claim....

BTW: They didn't attack us for our freedum either.

Oh,...in case you didn't peek:



9/11 was a BLIP.

[leftynyc]

138. LOL - and now shoving words into my mouth

and using GIGANTIC CHARTS as if that will get you beyond this. You specifically said that there was no economic impact from 9/11 - completely forgetting about actual NYers. I proved you wrong eons ago and you still want to make this about Hillary. That's pathetic but about what I've come to expect.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

139. You really are going to go there, aren't you....

You're going to exploit 9/11 to benefit Hillary.

[leftynyc]

147. Don't even try that, cupcake

YOU made the comment that there was NO economic impact from 9/11. You're the one who made that stupid and easy to disprove charge. This has nothing to do with Hillary. NOTHING. You made a stupid comment and should just own up to it rather than flailing about this way (which frankly is embarrassing to watch). Don't blame Hillary for you making an easy to disprove charge and refusing to back away from it. That's ALL on you.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

161. Top economists agree that 9/11 had ZERO effect on the economy.....

That is a FACT. Hillary is now trying to backtrack. You should follow her,....uh,.....reversal.

[leftynyc]

163. Come down to NYC and

tell all those small business owners they weren't effected by it. Or continue to let you hatred of Hillary allow you to discount them. It's a lovely side of you and this conversation has been most enlightening. Now we know what matters to you.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

198. I'll ask them if they believe she was given Wall Street money as a thank you for helping them.

[leftynyc]

233. I can't thank you enough

for showing just what you are and what can be expected of you. Small business owners who lost everything get a juvenile emoticon from you. Lovely. You are no longer worth my time.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

241. You are demonstrating politics at it's ugliest.

[Florencenj2point0]

211. I think he should ask the owner of an Italian deli

or perhaps a guy who sells pin ball machines and other arcade games.

[valerief]

158. The Koch Industries small business didn't.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/3/10/954957/-

[BootinUp]

167. wtf?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

196. You Hillary supporters really need to stop echoing Dubya.

[BootinUp]

200. This is not a question of echoing anybody

its a question of common sense my friend.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

214. Really? Do you REALLY believe Wall Street is paying her big bucks because of 9/11?

[BootinUp]

218. Did the OP get changed? I guess you want

to change the subject.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

220. I'll take that as an uncomfortable "no".

[BootinUp]

222. Of course you will, lol.

[UglyGreed]

96. .

[treestar]

97. Yes, and at least symbolically

Why did the hijackers choose the Twin Towers? They chose it as a financial center of the US.

There were many businesses in those towers, a lot of them would have been what people here on DU rant on about as "Wall Street."

[Skinner]

101. Bin Laden chose three targets: The Capitol Building, The Pentagon, and the World Trade Center

Surely you see the symbolism there.

The Capitol Building: American government
The Pentagon: American military power
The World Trade Center: American commerce

If Bin Laden wanted to attack our tallest building he would have flown a plane into the Sears Tower in Chicago. Instead, he chose the World Trade Center in New York.

[MaggieD]

105. I can't believe you have to explain that

But thanks.

[zappaman]

106. Of course, it's painfully obvious.

It's amazing the lengths people will go to to pretend they don't get it.

[TM99]

119. His words I already quoted above

and they make no mention of the World Trade Center as representative of our American commerce. He chose them for the high number of civilian causalities.

You make a bold assumption that the Capitol Building was the intended third target.

An investigation by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks found a high probability that the Capitol was the intended target of the hijackers, although no conclusive proof has been found.

So this is speculation on your part and denial of the actual evidence on one.

The problem with events like 9/11 is that it is very easy to apply conclusions after the fact even if they are not in accordance with the evidence because of the high psychological and emotional impact of the traumatic event.

[treestar]

134. that is not speculation

Atta did not think the White House would be easy enough to hit, and he rejected it as a target.

The Capitol is the obvious target for a plane hijacked by Al Qaeda that was headed to DC.

[TM99]

137. And yet the quote I give from the commission

that is so much smarter than posters on DU says it is not confirmable. So yes, it is speculation.

[treestar]

142. Not confirmable is not quite the same thing as speculation.

[TM99]

145. Uh, yes, actually it is.

If you can't confirm something, then you can only guess, speculate, imagine, wonder, offer opinionated thoughts, etc.

[treestar]

150. Why would it be a wild guess or speculation

to think it very likely to have been the Capitol?

[Florencenj2point0]

204. if you were right

they would have hit the buildings in the middle of the day, not early when so many people were not yet at work.
Ps...call Bernie and tell him his attacks on Hillary are obvious and even he looked embarrassed when she called him on it.

[TM99]

208. I see I have a new friend.

We haven't even been properly introduced.

All of this speculation and fantasy. All I did was present the actual facts on record to dispute the idiocy of Clinton's Guillani like comment.

[MaggieD]

104. Yes they were

The whole point was to bring down the country financially. How can you not know that?

[TM99]

126. Because that is not what Osama Bin Laden

actually said on tape about 9/11.

I know - those damned facts that don't always line up with our agendas. Pesky buggers!

[Florencenj2point0]

213. well I would definately

take Bin Laden at his word. /sarcasm

[TM99]

219. Yes, of course,

let's ignore audio recordings as factual evidence and instead take the ramblings of various anonymous DU members instead.

[randome]

116. She may not have articulated her point very well but I agree with other posters on this thread.

The goal was to ruin us financially and it didn't work.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

135. They may not have understood the depth of the economy

Like if you take out that one big building in Riyadh, the main army base, and the King, you may have wrecked Saudi Arabia. But they were dense if they thought they could wreck the US that way. Then again bin Laden was dense enough to think he had defeated the Soviets and that he could therefore defeat the other superpower if he could just get the US to fight him there in Afghanistan. And he got his way.

[randome]

175. It really is a clash between two different worlds.

It's inevitable that conflicts and misunderstandings occur as the globe gets smaller and smaller.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[NCTraveler]

122. Yes, it was.

An attack on what represents capitalism worldwide was a big part of it. I don't think you believe what you just typed. That is often the case when one comes from a point of anger and opposition to everything.

[karynnj]

124. If you know NYC geography - it was hit

First of all, a large portion of the people working on Wall Street entered NYC on the PATH line directly under the World Trade Center. In addition, Cantor/Fitzgerald had its offices in one of the highest floors of the trade center - and lost many people. The entire tip of Manhattan was covered with the toxic ashes of the destroyed buildings. Many WS firms had to relocate - mostly to midtown when their offices in the trade center area became unusable.

Wall Street is primarily centered around Wall Street - that may become less over time, but what is clear is that the stock exchanges were impacted.

[riversedge]

128. Gosh hedgehog, take down your silly post to avoid looking foolish to the world. Many

downstream have informed you of Wall Street--its location, The financial centers--the world trade center, etc.

[hedgehog]

144. I think the thread is illuminating (albeit with a lot of flames)

For some people, "Wall Street" is a location, and a stand-in for the many whose lives were forever changed on 911.

For others, "Wall Street" is the people who work for or are dependent on the Stock Exchange, big banks, brokers, etc. I learned that many of these people took a hit when jobs moved out of the City and into New Jersey after 911.

For me, "Wall Street" signifies the financial structure, stock exchanges, brokers, commercial banks, hedge funds etc. I would say that that financial structure took a temporary hit on 911, but far less of a hit than was self-inflicted with junk bonds. This "Wall Street" would have taken that temporary hit if the attack had been in Chicago or Los Angeles or any other major American city.

I think when anyone of us refers to Wall Street, we should take care that we're referring to the same Wall Street. I would say that no one here is without heart, that everyone here was a New Yorker that day and wanted the damaged parts of the City rebuilt better than ever. At the same time, many of us are very critical and suspicious of the Wall Street that lobbies for rules that hurt us back on Main Street.

[mmonk]

140. The World Trade Center was the target.

Al queda felt it represented American Imperialism in the region and the link to the House of Saud which they opposed.

[FloridaBlues]

152. You forget the entire area was trashed

[Historic NY]

261. It pretty much remained much a ghost town for years thereafter..

as business abandoned the area. It took lots to clean up the area. Lots of old office suites became college dorms. As the area crawled its way back.

[merrily]

229. Yes and no. It's complicated. But two things:

Senators don't represent a street or an industry, but humans.

Trying to exploit the emotions that voters have around the deaths and other destruction of 911 to defend yourself for being funded by Wall Street (even as you descry Citizens United) is horrific and dumb.

Why dumb? Rudy Giuliani's attempt to exploit 911--and he was actually in NYC that day--has already been ventilated and mocked and worked against him. Thanks to Biden, Giuliani's name has practically become noun verb 911. Finally, at this juncture, she is trying to appeal to Democratic voters, who were the most critical of what Giuliani attempted with 911. So, yes, I think it was dumb. It's this kind of thing that was the reason she requested only four debates and why the Coronation Central DNC made it so. (Quick--what are the dates of the last two debates.)

[Smarmie Doofus]

254. Of course not.

It's another non-issue brought forth by that bottomless pit of non-issues: the Clinton campaign.