Fact check time. Others may have noticed a discrepancy of dates. The blog I clipped asserts Thurs. Sept. 11th is the date, but Limbaugh's and another linked blog article at Rush's page, say it was Thursday, Sept. 18th. Rush says:

It was Kanjorski on C-SPAN on January 27th, said it was Thursday the 18th.

But listen to the tape yourself (the 2:10 minute mark to CSPAN on Rush's own page), for the Congressman never provides that date, only the link Rush provides as a "source" article, and that to a mere blog too, which provides no evidence either.

Another blog article (which is pro-neocon agenda) blatantly challenges the date controversy: [url=http://www.rene...

Fact check time. Others may have noticed a discrepancy of dates. The blog I clipped asserts Thurs. Sept. 11th is the date, but Limbaugh's and another linked blog article at Rush's page, say it was Thursday, Sept. 18th. Rush says:

It was Kanjorski on C-SPAN on January 27th, said it was Thursday the 18th.

But listen to the tape yourself (the 2:10 minute mark to CSPAN on Rush's own page), for the Congressman never provides that date, only the link Rush provides as a "source" article, and that to a mere blog too, which provides no evidence either.

Another blog article (which is pro-neocon agenda) blatantly challenges the date controversy: $550B run on money markets, 9/11 or 9/18, 2008?.
But even they admit, referring to the same CSPAN tape, thus refuting Rush and his linked blog:

From this [CSPAN], one would logically assume that the Thursday in question was likely on 9/11.

But they then make this assertion, with no clear or logical evidence, but bare assertion:

However, there were news reports at the end of the following week which indicated a 9/18 date, for a huge draw-down

... yet no such clear dating is provided in the articles they link, one of which is a mere blog!

What they do admit is this, which is real interesting:

it is clear that details of this enormous threat to the United States' economy were being kept quiet. From the above, one is compelled to ask, how quiet? For example, it being kept as quiet as it was, had traders been trained by the federal government to hush news of any market panic potentially caused by economic terrorism? And if so, how long might they have been able to keep such a thing quiet? After all, it would be convenient to keep very, very quiet, an enormous economic attack on the date, 9/11.

Yes, it would be "convenient" and necessary to keep such a secret. A

The bottom line, and key point, is that a New September 11th "changed everything"--again! Precisely like the former one in 2001, at the same place, which was used to launch a change in military policy and action, this was used to change economic policy and action, and on a global basis as well.

The similarities of these two 9/11s is striking in how they established a new radical agenda, justifying "change", for two different Presidents. It is too striking, too coincidental to go unnoticed.

This was economic terrorism, too timely to be a coincidence. Who was behind it? The same parties? Or was it "blow-back" for the first 9/11 and its military agenda? Or w...

The bottom line, and key point, is that a New September 11th "changed everything"--again! Precisely like the former one in 2001, at the same place, which was used to launch a change in military policy and action, this was used to change economic policy and action, and on a global basis as well.

The similarities of these two 9/11s is striking in how they established a new radical agenda, justifying "change", for two different Presidents. It is too striking, too coincidental to go unnoticed.

This was economic terrorism, too timely to be a coincidence. Who was behind it? The same parties? Or was it "blow-back" for the first 9/11 and its military agenda? Or was someone "sending a message", threatening to take down America financially, if a certain new agenda is not followed, or perhaps continued? Like the first 9/11, it put Congress in fear, and coerced a new course of action, through radical legislation, under the plea of "necessity", which has only enlarged the power of the Federal Reserve system of private banks, and expanded their economic "global hegemony", by calling for international "change".

Yes, the "invisible hand", working through both political parties, first right, then left, moves the same direction toward "world order" (a term both Obama and Bush have used) by acts of "intimidation to coerce government"--the very definition of "terrorism".

1920-1931 - Louis T. McFadden is Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Curency. Concerning the Federal Reserve, Congressman McFadden notes:

"When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists [e.g Bilderberg society] acting togethe[b]...

Yes, the "invisible hand", working through both political parties, first right, then left, moves the same direction toward "world order" (a term both Obama and Bush have used) by acts of "intimidation to coerce government"--the very definition of "terrorism".

1920-1931 - Louis T. McFadden is Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Curency. Concerning the Federal Reserve, Congressman McFadden notes:

"When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists [e.g Bilderberg society] acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is - the Fed has usurped the Government. It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will."

....it threatens to "make or break" governments too, through economic terrorism.

The Bailout and "Economic Recovery Act" benefited the Banksters of the Fed and Wall Street, not Main Street, the most, and was supported by both Bush and Obama.

The same-date coincidence makes me think the Illuminati could be involved. They are extremely into symbolism etc. Dates, symbols and "the hidden, but in plain view" thing, means a lot to them.

Indeed, the 9/11 "signature", and from Criminology 101, certain criminals take pride in leaving "a signature" (like the planted P glove in Pink Panther movies), that are a cryptic message publicly broadcast that identifies the party:

Signature behaviors are those acts committed by an offender that are not necessary to complete the offense. Their convergence can be used to suggest an offender’s psychological or emotional needs (signature aspect). They are best...

read more»

The same-date coincidence makes me think the Illuminati could be involved. They are extremely into symbolism etc. Dates, symbols and "the hidden, but in plain view" thing, means a lot to them.

Indeed, the 9/11 "signature", and from Criminology 101, certain criminals take pride in leaving "a signature" (like the planted P glove in Pink Panther movies), that are a cryptic message publicly broadcast that identifies the party:

Signature behaviors are those acts committed by an offender that are not necessary to complete the offense. Their convergence can be used to suggest an offender’s psychological or emotional needs (signature aspect). They are best understood as a reflection of the underlying personality, lifestyle, and developmental experiences of an offender

The use of base-11 symbolism as a cryptic signature, has been pervasively employed in the 9/11, 3/11 (Spain), 7/7 (London) and even more historic events like 11/22 (JFK assassination), all "catalyzing events" to coerce change by terrorism. This is not the signature of radical Muslims, but of the Illuminati societies, in fact a cryptic signature which communicates both perpetrator and motive to others who will understand and understand the events' radical purpose. "911" is too convenient to convey and represent the need for "emergency powers" to Americans minds.