It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 stock question

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
What ever happen to the "put options" that were placed on the airline stocks?
Who placed them? Were they ever collected? Whoever did,should have or is going to,collect a large sum of money.I was hoping i could find answers here.Thanks for any help.




posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   
They were never collected. When the information became public, they were never picked up. They were placed anonymously. I think there WERE suspects, and Mike Ruppert investigated it, but he's left the country now for his own safety. The FBI supposedly investigated it but I'm not sure they ever came back with anything.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
What you have to understand is that people don't just go out and buy stock options or put options for the fun of it, they buy it because they are confident that the stock is going to move either up or down.

Now, the 9/11 commission did threat the put options, here is what they say:

In sum, the investigation found absolutely no evidence that any trading occurred with foreknowledge of 9/11. The transparency of the U.S. securities markets almost ensures that any such trading would be detectable by investigators. Even if the use of some combination of offshore accounts, shell companies, and false identification obscured the identity of the traders themselves, the unexplained trade would stand out like a giant red flag. The absence of any such flags corroborates the conclusion that there is no evidence any such trading occurred. Indeed, the leaders of both the SEC and FBI investigations into pre-9/11 trading expressed great confidence in this conclusion.

So basically, they don't tell us what was the motives for buying those options, they don't even acknowledge that these options were never cashed in. But it gets better.

Another good example concerns a suspicious UAL put trade on September 7, 2001. A single trader bought more than one-third of the total puts purchased that day, establishing a position that proved very profitable after 9/11. Moreover, it turns out that the same trader had a short position in UAL calls—another strategy that would pay off if the price of UAL dropped. Investigation, however, identified the purchaser as a well-established New York hedge fund with $2 billion under management. Setting aside the unlikelihood of al Qaeda having a relationship with a major New York hedge fund, these trades looked facially suspicious. But further examination showed the fund also owned 29,000 shares of UAL stock at the time—all part of a complex, computer-driven trading strategy. As a result of these transactions, the fund actually lost $85,000 in value when the market reopened. Had the hedge fund wanted to profit from the attacks, it would not have retained the UAL shares.

Now notice how they try to claim that it's a computer that bought the shares: part of a complex, computer-driven trading strategy

Imagine that! A computer is buying shares ten times the average volume and by just claiming that, there is no more needs to look further into this! Right!

Then they go: Investigation, however, identified the purchaser as a well-established New York hedge fund

So they very well know who bought those funds, the just aren't telling us!
But why not? If those guys didn't do anything wrong, why not release their names?

Then it gets juicier: Setting aside the unlikelihood of al Qaeda having a relationship with a major New York hedge fund

That is basically saying that "Oh these guys probably aren't connected to al Qaeda so we don't need to worry about them" ... in other words, don't follow the money!
And these guys are readily stating that they want to pursue evidence that lead to al Qaeda, evidences pointing elsewhere are not accepted by the commission. If those buyers are not connected to Al Qaeda, they can't be guilty! Right!

And yet they add: Had the hedge fund wanted to profit from the attacks, it would not have retained the UAL shares.

So basically, soon after 9/11 the news was made that some people tried to but put options. So because that un-named trader didn't cash the options in doesn't prove that they are suspicious, it only proves their innocence. The mental gymnastic required to write this stuff up is absolutely unbelievable!
There is a bunch of pages you can read up about it:
www.9-11commission.gov...
It's all BS to muddy up the water and try to simply state that there was NOTHING wrong with buying shares of those companies in the amounts 10 times over the daily average.


[edit on 29-11-2006 by Pepe Lapiu]



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
AT the very least, someone who bought and investment as such... would have to have a trail leading to him one way or another.. through receipts, bank accounts or something...

They find the person who bought them, if they really wanted to..



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
American stock had been falling, and on Friday, Sept. 7 they announced a prediction of higher-than-expected losses for Q3 and Q4, on top of a Q2 loss. On Monday, investors made the safe bet that the stock would continue to fall. 911myths.com has covered this issue in depth.

And from the 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 5, note 130:

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options--investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price--surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10--highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
AT the very least, someone who bought and investment as such... would have to have a trail leading to him one way or another.. through receipts, bank accounts or something...

They find the person who bought them, if they really wanted to..

But THEY DO KNOW who bought those put options. Every single one of them too!
They just aren't telling us, that's all. Read my last post and the link I submitted to the 9/11 commission to figure out that they very well know who did it.
Only they claim it's not important because these people are not connected to Al Qeada, therefore they are innocent! What a stupid logic that is! Talk about spin doctors!



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
Only they claim it's not important because these people are not connected to Al Qeada, therefore they are innocent! What a stupid logic that is! Talk about spin doctors!


Just out of interest, how many years have you spent doing investigations for the FBI and what was your involvement in investigating the put options on 9/11?

From the 9/11 Commision Report:



Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.


So no connection to 9/11 as well as no connection to al Queda. That was the conclusion reached by professional investigators with the FBI. Now if your experience in this issue exceeds theirs, please, enlighten me.



[edit on 29/11/2006 by doctorfungi]



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
Only they claim it's not important because these people are not connected to Al Qeada, therefore they are innocent! What a stupid logic that is! Talk about spin doctors!


Just out of interest, how many years have you spent doing investigations for the FBI and what was your involvement in investigating the put options on 9/11?

From the 9/11 Commision Report:



Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.


So no connection to 9/11 as well as no connection to al Queda. That was the conclusion reached by professional investigators with the FBI. Now if your experience in this issue exceeds theirs, please, enlighten me.



[edit on 29/11/2006 by doctorfungi]


Im afraid I lost all confidence in 'federal' assets 'confirming' the governments statement....

These FBI Agents listened to the government when they said not to investigate alqaeda, and not to admit it to the media.

Not all FBI, but obviously enough of them not to find anything connecting 911.

You think someone just picked this airline at random?



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
Only they claim it's not important because these people are not connected to Al Qeada, therefore they are innocent! What a stupid logic that is! Talk about spin doctors!


Just out of interest, how many years have you spent doing investigations for the FBI and what was your involvement in investigating the put options on 9/11?

From the 9/11 Commision Report:



Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.


So no connection to 9/11 as well as no connection to al Queda. That was the conclusion reached by professional investigators with the FBI. Now if your experience in this issue exceeds theirs, please, enlighten me.

So if nobody is guilty, why did they not cash in on those put options?
Why are the names of those buyers not made public?
How about you explain to us what Q4, Q3 and Q2 loses are?

The facts are that put options were bought before 9/11 against those airlines involved and that amount of options war a record not seen in years.
Those who bought the shares are not named by the commission even tho they know who they are and those options have yet to be cashed in .... now you want to think that it's all gravy, fine with me. Now go buy a gallon of fuel and see if you can melt any amounts of steel with that ..... and pay yier taxes too, gubment loves a man who pays his taxes!

It's just a coincidence that those options were bought just before 9/11 right? Are you a coincidence theorist?

I'll bet you it would be pretty interesting to find out just who bought those options but don't count on the commission or FBI to tell you that.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Unlike other theorists regarding the Sept. 11th attacks, I feel that the stock options that were put on American Airlines and Boeing in the days prior to September the 11th hold alot of key answers to who knew what prior to the attacks.

Being in college, I have been able to talk in depth to many Ph.D's in Finance, and all have informed me that every single one of us can gain access to stock movements, options of puts and calls, etcetera on any stock on any given day.

However, we must be weary in doing so because like others in the past, the government is very easy to pick up on such issues.

I am "moderate" in alot of thinking about the possiblities of the 9|11 attacks, but do feel that there was involvement by Americans.

And to reply to Dr. Fungi and 911myths.com's claims regarding stock options put on stocks if analysts say that "Q3, Q4" will be declining, this is completely false. If you know anything about the stock market, the chances of a stock "expert" being on with their predictions is like a monkey throwing a dart at a dartboard to show if the stock is rising or falling. And to be honest, ANYONE is business knows and understands this too.

If you have a great deal of money invested in a company, you do NOT listen to experts (unless there is insider trading involved). This is something that everyone in business knows, understands, and accepts. So, as a future entrepreneur and business owner, I do not at all believe that concept.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMP
And to reply to Dr. Fungi and 911myths.com's claims regarding stock options put on stocks if analysts say that "Q3, Q4" will be declining, this is completely false. If you know anything about the stock market, the chances of a stock "expert" being on with their predictions is like a monkey throwing a dart at a dartboard to show if the stock is rising or falling. And to be honest, ANYONE is business knows and understands this too.

Bizarre. The fact is that on the Friday before 9/11 American Airlines issued a number of major "bad news" announcements. The very next trading day saw the put options placed. But this is just a "coincidence", right? Who could possibly expect the value of American Airlines to fall in the coming weeks, just because, uh, the company had announced that they'd be making significant losses and cutting capacity?!



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Fungi I would becareful of your sourcing of 9/11myths.com. It's just like snopes. Not everything is as they say it is. Alot of the 9/11 myths are actually facts.

Just one example was ashcroft. He actually did stop flying jet airliners and was flying the smaller airlines because of in his words a hijacking threat. this was shortly before 9/11

Condi Rice didn't have a pot to piss in. They knew that terrorists wanted to hit the WTC again. The Able Danger program presented at least 70 warnings in the summer before 9/11 to Ashcroft and Rice.

The leader of able danger had his hair on fire about the issue. Failing to comprehend one or two warnings I can see but 70 is just unfounded and the 9/11 Comission defiantely dropped the ball.

It's funding of one million dollars means it wasn't meant to find the true answers or culprits of 9/11.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by jinsanity]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by jinsanity
Fungi I would becareful of your sourcing of 9/11myths.com. It's just like snopes. Not everything is as they say it is. Alot of the 9/11 myths are actually facts.

Just one example was ashcroft. He actually did stop flying jet airliners and was flying the smaller airlines because of in his words a hijacking threat. this was shortly before 9/11

And he also said (and others accepted) that he had flown commercial airliners occasionally before 9/11. Why did you forget to mention that?

Still, I'd not heard that this was because of a "hijacking threat". Do you have a source for that?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join