911 commission credibility has already been shot and they currently have dubious reputation. As time has unravelled, we're finding out more that all of the agencies you have listed above have either lied to the commission and withheld crucial documents (i'm not going to provide sources to set an example, there are too much information). We're also finding out that w. bush initally opposed the creation 911 commission before caving in to victim's families increasing pressure for independant inquiry in the attacks. All of a sudden, bush cherry picks those with conflict of interests to head the panel. Even lee hamilton admitted the commission was set up by bush and cheney to fail. Its also been confirmed that karl "spin doctor" rove and philip zelikow have controlled the flow of information to the commission. Any reason why I should trust what was written in the report?
BTW I am speaking of this...
-Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co, which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Centre, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before September 11. This is against an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley's share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 after the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts had been bought based on knowledge of the impending attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million.
-Merrill Lynch & Co, which also occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Centre, saw 12,215 October series $45 put option bought in the four trading days before attacks, a 1,200 per cent jump from the average trade volume of about 250 contracts a day. When trading resumed, Merrill's shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50. Assuming that 11,000 option contracts had been bought by 'insiders,' their profit would have been $5.5 million.
http://www.ict.org.il/index.php?sid=119%E2%8C%A9=en&act=page&id=5230&str =insider+trading
at least the report confirms that wild conspiracy theory put forth by the white house that osama bin laden was behind the manipulation of the stocks was false. Considering that the white house has a history of signing executive orders to assure lobbyists, gas and oil corporations, and defense contractors are immune to prosecutions. Why should this be any different?
I am not denying that 9/11 was an evil act perpetrated towards the US. I'm just not buying the white house's version of the story.