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.

 

Suppressed Details of 9/11 Insider Trading Leads to CIA's Highest Ranks

page: 3
75
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



Sorry golden, but as usual your post has no merit. Keep trying though. At least you post on a board where all the sheep with follow you without doing any research. Why were the same amount of put options contracted in sept 2000? Did I miss a terrorist attack? Your argument is weak at best. Explain the puts in 2000! Percentage wise it was actually greater in 2000!


[edit on 12-2-2009 by tide88]

[edit on 12-2-2009 by tide88]




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
These theories would be more believable if they had a similar track.

Unfortunately, we get 9 different accounts of every aspect of 9/11, from method to motives, so you really can't believe any of it. War agenda? Oh.. no, not a war agenda.. it's for the money!

What hit the Pentagon?

A. A jumbo passenger AA jet.
B. A missile.
C. Another plane painted to look like an AA jet.
D. Nothing.. as the real plane flew over, an explosion was set off internally at that very moment.
E. There was no plane at all, people were delusional and stupid, it was just an explosion set off.

Pity I've heard all those theories and more. And when every single one of those is supposedly 100% correct.. at least by those who claim them to be true... it's sort of difficult to take any of them at face value.

Maybe if all these theories got on the same page, instead of looking like wild guesses, based on anything you can drum up, people would take these more seriously.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Excellent thread with great info for those who know little or none about the insider trading, further proving 9/11 was an inside job.

Thread flagged.


Why does it prove that it was an inside job? Al Qeada couldn't make these investments? Osama is/was a multi-millionare. He clearly has financial know how.

Just because people profited from these put options doesn't prove that it was an inside job.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


Yet another ignorant liberal taking whatever opportunity he can to attack Bush. Might I remind you that Obama is a socialist and will soon attempt to strip Americans of whatever constitutional rights we have left? I suggest you educate yourself on your own party, you moron, before you go around parroting everything the communist propaganda media machine spews.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Unfortunately, we get 9 different accounts of every aspect of 9/11, from method to motives, so you really can't believe any of it.

I agree -- the government really needs to get their story straight. First they said no jet fighter intercepts got off the ground. Then they said a few did, but it was impossible to locate the hijacked jets in all the confusion.

Then when the 19 "hijackers" were identified, press reports said six or seven were still alive! The FBI claimed phony identities might have been used, but the "real" hijackers were never identified.

After that, the government's conspiracy theory became increasingly anomalous and suspicious.


Originally posted by fleabit
What hit the Pentagon?

I've gotta go with Rumsfeld and that 9/11 Commissioner who said it was a missile.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


So are you going to answer my question? Why were there just as many puts placed in 2000 as in 2001 around the same time in september? And in actuality the percentage rates were higher in 2000, yet there were no attacks. According to your logic there should of been some type of terrorist attack in 2000 too. If this is the one thing that finally convinced your friend maybe you should tell him the all the info available. Not some chopped up "truther" version.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88

150000 share of UAL. The same guy who puchased 95% of the put options for that same stock 4 days earlier. He was hedging his bet. As for the 2.5 million never collected, who knows. Maybe he died in the attacks. Maybe multiple people who had options never collected it because they were killed. Maybe that person felt extemely guilty that he made money on a catastrophic event. Or maybe, just maybe the person thought that people would say he had something to do with the attacks, even though he didnt. Maybe that is why those names were never released. If they were everyone on this board and every other conspiracy board would be bashing their good names right now. There are many reasons and just because you dont know the specifics doesnt mean squat. If it was me I wouldnt want you people to know either.


Thanks for the clarification. I don't know about the non-collection due to death scenerio. While I agree that it's certainly possible I also view society as monetarily and greed-driven. I would assume that if someone died who had active trading assets, any survivors or estate-bearers would follow up and manage all of those assets.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



"The plane became a missile, hitting vehicles left and right," said Newark Mayor Sharpe James. "There was debris scattered all about, and the bodies were hurling out."
source Seems like Rummy isnt the only one who describes a plane as a missile under certain circumstances. And the above event wasnt even on 9/11.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TXRabbit
 


Yes I agree. I would also like to see an updated article. Seeing that one isnt even dated 1 month from the time of the incident, when those put option wouldnt even have expired yet. That 2.5 million might very well have been collected by now. When options expire they are automatically credited the said person or persons account. It is not like you can take a load of cash into a brokerage and place a put order without opening an account. It just doesnt work that way. And that article that everyone keeps referencing was from the SF Chronical and is dated sept 29 2001.


[edit on 12-2-2009 by tide88]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Although I am well aware of how extremely important
information such as this - gets lost and forgotten.
I still get a fantastic twinge of satisfaction knowing that yet another
attempt is made to bring these things to light.
Who knows - maybe one day - with all that is out there -
it really will be impossible for us to ignore what really happened.
Keep bringing it on.
Saturation might be where truth happens.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Then when the 19 "hijackers" were identified, press reports said six or seven were still alive! The FBI claimed phony identities might have been used, but the "real" hijackers were never identified.

After that, the government's conspiracy theory became increasingly anomalous and suspicious.


Originally posted by fleabit
What hit the Pentagon?

I've gotta go with Rumsfeld and that 9/11 Commissioner who said it was a missile.



TOUCHE!!!

LOL



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 

After ridiculous responses like this:


Love how the article fails to mention that the same person who bought 95% of the put options also bought 115,000 shares on sept. 10.

Then when it was pointed out that "the same person" failed to collect $2.5 mil:


Maybe the person worked at Morgan Stanley and was killed in those horrific attacks!

Perhaps it's best to ignore professional debunkers who constantly pull crap out of their you-know-where.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by tide88
 

After ridiculous responses like this:


Love how the article fails to mention that the same person who bought 95% of the put options also bought 115,000 shares on sept. 10.

Then when it was pointed out that "the same person" failed to collect $2.5 mil:


Maybe the person worked at Morgan Stanley and was killed in those horrific attacks!

Perhaps it's best to ignore professional debunkers who constantly pull crap out of their you-know-where.


First off nowhere does it state, nor do I imply that the 2.5 million was the same person who bought those puts and 115k shares. Obviously there wouldnt have been a 2.5 million profit if he was hedging his puts by purchasing 115k shares. Why are you ignoring my question golden? Why were just as many if not more puts placed almost exactly a year before in sept 2000, yet there were no terrorist attacks? Why do you keep ignoring my question?

[edit on 12-2-2009 by tide88]

[edit on 12-2-2009 by tide88]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



To be sure, there are a number of legitimate reasons to account for the increase in short selling that have nothing to do with terrorism.

For instance, the airline industry was in serious finance trouble even prior to the attacks, as business and consumer travel demand slacked off in a weakening economy. And both AMR and UAL posted huge second-quarter losses in July and said they could be in the red for the rest of the year.

What's more, short-selling on the exchange has become increasingly prevalent. Each month has seen a record high, with a new peak of 5.98 billion shares shorted this month.

Still, anyone shorting shares of AMR and UAL would have turned a strong profit. UAL closed yesterday at $17.13 per share, off 44 percent from its close of $30.82 the day before the attack. AMR is down 40 percent, closing at $17.90 yesterday from $29.70 on Sept. 10.

Only one carrier, US Airways, saw a higher jump in short sales, with an increase of 41 percent. But there were obvious reasons to short that company: US Airways is laden with debt and was the target of a takeover bid from United that failed in July.

As with put options, it is difficult to tell how much money was made in the short selling of UAL and AMR stocks without more specific information about sale and repurchase prices and dates of execution.
SF Chronical sept 22, 2001



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



Perhaps it's best to ignore professional debunkers who constantly pull crap out of their you-know-where


You are talking about me pulling crap out of you-know-where?
You cant even back up your claims. You and your so called sources leave out pertinent information. Like the guy who places 95% of the put options on UAL on sept 6 also hedges his bet by buying 115,000 shares of the same stock on the 10th of sept. Pretty important info if you ask me. Or how about the almost the exact same amount of put increases were place in Sept of 2000? Yet no terrorist attack then. Of course you just ignore the question I ask you, because you cannot answer it. All you can do is post incomplete info from rediculous unrealiable sources. It is a shame that this post has gotten so many stars and flags. Just shows how many gullible people on this site are. It is really quite sad. And you call me a sheep.


[edit on 12-2-2009 by tide88]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 
Jezus, are you kidding me? Did you even read the rest of my post, or did you just look for that little tidbit where I hypothesized that it could have been a wealthy Saudi or an al Qaida member that exercised the put options?

You either didn't read my entire post, or you were so concerned with making an example of myself and others that you failed to comprehend what I was saying. The irony here is the hypocrisy of your posting. I am the level-headed individual who took a step back and looked at all of the options, including government involvement. But you sat there and accused me of reaching a preconceived notion as part of an act of denial- a defense mechanism, even. The reality is that YOU are the one in denial. YOU are the one who refused to consider the fact that these put options could have come from someone in, or close to, al Qaida. YOU refused to acknowledge that these put options could very well have been payback for certain people's support both in the 9/11 operation and others.

Despite your rude assumptions, I am still very open to the possibility (as I said in my original post and will repeat here to try and make it clear to you) that there was US government involvement, foreknowledge, or even flat out orchestration in the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, it is quite possible that government officials or their buddies in the corporate world were the beneficiaries of these put options. But without evidence pointing to the actual individuals who exercised these put options, we are forced into simple guesswork and speculation. Unlike yourself, I prefer to see FACTS before I condemn someone. We should be more concerned with causing an uproar and forcing these individuals to be revealed than anything else.

And trust me, you do the whole 9/11 conspiracy movement a great disservice when you attack people who very well could be on your side. Try not to be so ignorant in the future. Try to understand that just because you have assumed something based on your "extensive" research (ie: using Google!) does not mean that you are correct and everyone else has their heads buried in the sand.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
you dont get it tide88

the hedging and the earlier peaks dont prove that 911 was an inside job. Therefore that information is unimportant to the subject at hand and can be ignored.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
First thanks for the thread! S&F!

This is all strictly speculation on my part. It is widely known and accepted that foreign intelligence agencies tried to warn the US government of an imminent attack on 9/11! Their are many operatives within those agencies who would have been privy to that information. Remember the 5 dancing Israelies? Maybe they were dancing for the huge score they just made on the stock market! They admitted being there to observe the attacks on Israeli TV.

So why didn't they collect? Well it seems obvious to me this would have been a huge embarrassment to Israel and the US and they were propably "advised" by their superiors to forget it ever happened or they would not live to spend their riches.


The same would hold true for British Intelligence, French Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, and agents at the FBI and CIA. A coverup to ensure the American public never realized the US government had advanced knowledge of the attack.

I completely discount Usama bin Laden due to the fact whoever placed those trades would have been among the first to be arrested and executed and widley publicized as great law enforcement work in bringing the terrorists to justice.

I do believe the insider trading is evidence of foreknowledge of the attacks.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by daddymax
 


Here's something else that didn't make it to the 9/11 Commission report:

PBS: Spy Factory

This link will take you to the hour long special. In it NSA insiders complain that the information they had on the 9/11 hijackers was never used to obtain a warrant for arrest despite calls to do so by the FBI.

None of this information was made public until PBS:NOVA made it so.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 



I do believe the insider trading is evidence of foreknowledge of the attacks.


That is great and all but there isnt any proof of insider trading, actually the opposite is true. There is proof there wasnt any. Maybe you can answer my question since gloden ignores it. Why were there just as many put options contracted 1 year before in sept of 2000? With the same amount, actually percentage wise more, of increased activity from the day before. According to your assumptions there would have also been multiple terrorist attacks in 2000. As well as many more in 2001 both before and after sept 11. You guys do the "truth movement" a diservice with your false statements. It would be almost laughable if we werent talking about sept. 11, instead it is sickening. Spreading lies and giving people half truths and incomplete facts. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join