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: 9
75
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Your assumption is based on an urban legend : according to the SEC and the FBI, all the profits have been collected. So, you're rght when you say that it would confirm insider trading...

So, dear debunker, do you have any more sophistic point to add?




posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by frenchyOO7
Your assumption is based on an urban legend : according to the SEC and the FBI, all the profits have been collected.


No. My assumption was based on what Golden Fleece wrote. I suppose I'll know not to take him at face value again.


So, you're rght when you say that it would confirm insider trading...


I didn't say that. And it most certainly wouldn't. I wrote that it would neither confirm nor refute it.


So, dear debunker, do you have any more sophistic point to add?


There's more in my post, which you choose not to respond to. If you like I can repeat it.

Meanwhile perhaps you'd like to address the issue pointed to above:



Originally posted by me --

Take, for example, the 2075 UAL put options bought on Sept 6. Fully 2000 of these were from one source, a US based investment adviser. And yet he actually purchased 115,000 UAL shares on Sept 10, which would be an odd position to take if you had prior knowledge.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
This issue has been adressed by professors paul zarembka and allen poteshmann, both financial specialists.

Make your research and you will understand that the problem behind these put options is the ratio or more specifically the lack of balance between put and call options for thEse airlines companies.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
So, no link to any evidence, and no response to what I wrote. Just an appeal to some obscure authority.

I'll ask you to respond again. Here's what I wrote -

Take, for example, the 2075 UAL put options bought on Sept 6. Fully 2000 of these were from one source, a US based investment adviser. And yet he actually purchased 115,000 UAL shares on Sept 10, which would be an odd position to take if you had prior knowledge.

This even deals with what you're written. A high volume of puts but the overwhelming majority from one source, who then hedged his position days later. Why would he do that if he knew what was going to happen?

And why would he be the only person purchasing put options? If the conspiracy was known about even by a few hundred people then one would expect more purchases from more sources. And if this was a concerted effort at making money why not organise masses of small purchases through different buyers? None of it makes sense.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by frenchyOO7
Your assumption is based on an urban legend : according to the SEC and the FBI, all the profits have been collected.

No. My assumption was based on what Golden Fleece wrote. I suppose I'll know not to take him at face value again.

Not so fast. If Frenchy007 has information that contradicts what's been presented in this thread, he needs to provide a link. I've searched and found nothing except the following:


On September 29, 2001 - in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the major media - the San Francisco Chronicle reported, "Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data".

"The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors - whose identities and nationalities have not been made public - had advance knowledge of the strikes". They don't dare show up now. The suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking.


Sunday, July 16, 2006
Economic Policy Journal
Options Investigations and 9-11

The Wall Street Journal recently placed a story on its front page that details an investigation by WSJ that showed many companies granted their executives stock options following the 9-11 related drops in their stocks. So what? Where is it written you can not buy stock or set options when your stock is down? If execuitves believe in their companies, one would hope they do exactly this.

But while WSJ seems to have no problem going after corporate America for doing something that is clearly legal, the WSJ continues to be silent on the real 9-11 options scandal. We continue to hear from sources inside the CBOE that there was a cover-up as to who bought put options on airline stocks just before 9-11.

Our sources tell us that the CBOE was told to stop the investigation into who bought the put the options. "Documents were destroyed," a friend at the CBOE tells us.

www.economicpolicyjournal.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Here's the government disinfo website 911Myths.com's hilarious take on the uncollected $2.5 million in UAL put options:


Now let's take an alternative approach. What if you were an ordinary investor who had bought UAL puts innocently, with no knowledge of the attacks? How would you feel about making millions in profit from the deaths of thousands of people? Is it possible that you might feel very bad about this, guilty perhaps, and not exactly rush to claim your "winnings" at the first available moment?

It's all a matter of opinion, of course, but we think our interpretation makes more sense than the conspiratorial one, and doesn't raise nearly as many questions. But whether you disagree or not, this particular claim involves too many assumptions about motives to qualify as clear evidence of anything.

Yeah, that's probably it -- just an "ordinary investor" who felt "very bad" about making $2.5 million, so he disappeared. 911Myths is right that their "interpretation" doesn't raise nearly as many questions, that's for sure!


How can anyone take 911Myths.com seriously?

It's supposedly run by a single individual, but now they're saying "we think our interpretation..." and there's no indication of who "we" is. Gee, I wonder why not?



[edit on 1/20/2010 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
I don't think you've really provided much proof though. An nine-year-old article from days after the attacks and a four-year-old blog post by an obscure right winger that doesn't even mention uncollected monies.

To be honest 9/11 Myths' explanation doesn't seem that odd. It's not saying that there's a single investor who made 2.5 million, but that it could be many smaller investors holding off collecting. And it doesn't seem to me that there's a great deal of evidence either for that situation continuing for a long time or for the money being "uncollected" in the first place. True, I'd like to see Frenchy's source for calling it an "urban myth", but your links are hardly that persuasive either.

(And a small side note - You'll notice that Robert Wenzel says, in your quote from his site, "we continue to hear..." when the blog is apparently run only by him. It's surely just a figure of speech, and hardly a reason to write off a source).

But back to what I asked. Any danger of addressing it?



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

If an honest broker got that windfall through,say,a fortune teller's advice and bet against the prevailing mood as explained in the video,she/he would realize that there is no way to just drop it uncollected and not have a lifetime of explaining to do.They most certainly would hold a press conference and explain all and make a big show of,say,donating all to a charity.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by trueforger
 


Sorry, I don't quite follow. Could you explain a bit more?

If you mean that the prevailing wisdom at the time was that airline stocks were undervalued, I'm not sure you're correct.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

Earlier in the thread a video was embedded which contains analysis of the bigger picture.In it mention was made that transportation stocks were expected to be among the first to do well as our economy was on an upswing.There was no reason the airline stocks would do anything but prosper.PS I had that wrong,here's the correct:It was 'chaeron86' on p 6 of this thread,not Walter Burien's great video.Same point,it was no lucky guess.


[edit on 21-1-2010 by trueforger]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
I'm not sure that's true, but even if it is there's likely to be a spread of opinion anyway. For example, I use three different brokers. I usually speak to them all on the same day, and you often get quite different opinions of macroeconomic issues or individual sectors, or even individual equities.

And even if the general feelingwas that airlines were likely to prosper the decision to buy or sell the stock is a price decision anyway. So you can believe that airlines are likely to do well, but that this sentiment is already "priced in" to the stock. You might believe that because the market is so generally bullish on airlines that that price is too high and put options are thus a good purchase.

To give you an example, there was general sentiment in 2007 that the real estate market was in excellent shape (I know more about the UK, but I think that's the case in the US as well). Very few people thought houses would fall in value in the short term, but that was of course reflected in the price.

So if you wanted to play that market (either by buying property or through a property-based fund or derivative) you had to buy at a high price because the market (ie everybody else) basically agreed with you. If you'd been one of the few voices saying there would be a fall in values you could play the market at extremely favourable terms. And bang, you would have made a lot of money - all the more because you were against prevailing wisdom.

Sorry - this is rather long winded. And I must add that I don't rule out insider trading wrt 9/11. But the examples need more thorough investigation than the cursory (and in many cases financially illiterate) examinations above.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Investigations have been made : 911 insider trading is real for a 99% probability ACCORDING TO FINANCIAL ANALYSTS.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by frenchyOO7
 


And according to the people who actually INVESTIGATED (you know, looked at the records, interrogated the people involved) the issue, no crimes were committed.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by frenchyOO7
Investigations have been made : 911 insider trading is real for a 99% probability ACCORDING TO FINANCIAL ANALYSTS.


That's possible. I've read the Poteshman paper and the investigation report. However, I suspect it doesn't prove what you think it does about 9/11.

For a start the information is completely circumstantial and inconclusive. Second, it doesn't suggest that anyone inside the US government or military-industrial complex indulged in insider trading.

Finally you seem frightfully eager to believe the findings of financial analysts. Have you been reading the papers for the last couple of years? They get a lot of things wrong!



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



TERRORIST STOCK FIXING?

Contrary to speculation that terrorists profited
in stocks based on foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks,
data show both airlines had "put" increases prior
to Sept. 11 which indicate normal trading unaffected
by future events.

American Airlines * Put Volume

2000 9/22 1,192 Up from previous day of 85 puts
10/30 1,374 Up from previous day of 59 puts
12/29 1,673 Up from previous day of 31 puts

2001 1/8 1,315 Up from previous day of 582 puts
1/11 1,043 Up from previous day of 213 puts
4/16 1,019 Up from previous day of 452 puts
6/19 2,951 Up from previous day of 546 puts
9/10 2,282 Up from previous day of 485 puts

United Airlines * Put Volume

2000 9/14 5,280 Up from previous day of 338 puts
10/2 5,746 Up from previous day of 785 puts
10/19 6,625 Up from previous day of 374 puts

2001 1/16 5,775 Up from previous day of 582 puts
4/6 8,212 Up from previous day of 213 puts
7/20 2,995 Up from previous day of 452 puts
8/16 1,678 Up from previous day of 546 puts
9/10 186 Down from previous day of 485 puts

source


I'm going to address this, because it's one of the things that needs addressing in this thread and it hasn't been touched. I came here to ease my mind that someone could properly debunk the "insider trading," because I'm entering a period of my life where I really would like to be secure about what I'm told on the big, flat, magic screen.

So, spikes in put options have happened before? Allright, fair enough.

However, we really don't have any of those dates matching up as closely as the "put" purchases immediately preceding 911.


On Sept. 6-7, when there was no significant news or stock price movement involving United, the Chicago exchange handled 4,744 put options for UAL stock, compared with just 396 call options -- essentially bets that the price will rise. On Sept. 10, an uneventful day for American, the volume was 748 calls and 4,516 puts, based on a check of option trading records.

911research.wtc7.net...
source cited in website - Exchange examines odd jump, Associated Press, 9/18/01
Link to AP article
Exchange examines odd jump, Associated Press 9/19/01


Wow, so the two airlines in question had the large option purchases take place on the 6th and the 10th? That's very close.

We also don't have data on "call" options on those pre-911 purchase spikes from here, which is unsettling because perhaps those were simply "high trade volume" days and the omission of "call" options makes for a better argument against insider trading because the "call" option trades were as high as the "put" option trades.
Actually I doubt that's the case because a high volume of "put" option trades is probably indicative of SOME kind of insider knowledge regarding a price drop in a stock, and the "call" volume would not match in that case.


These arguments are not related to the information I set out to find, though. My intention was to see how many different stocks appeared to be traded with insider knowledge in the days before 911.

When you add this...


Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co. were both headquartered in lower Manhattan at the time of the attack. Morgan Stanley occupied 22 floors of the North Tower and Merrill Lynch had headquarters near the Twin Towers. Morgan Stanley, which saw an average of 27 put options on its stock bought per day before September 6, saw 2,157 put options bought in the three trading days before the attack. Merrill Lynch, which saw an average of 252 put options on its stock bought per day before September 5, saw 12,215 put options bought in the four trading days before the attack. Morgan Stanley's stock dropped 13% and Merrill Lynch's stock dropped 11.5% when the market reopened. 11


911research.wtc7.net...
to the airline options anomalies, things stop looking as coincidental. So that's four stocks that had abnormally large amounts of "put" options purchased in the days leading up to 911, and all four would be CERTAIN to lose value in the event that 911 took place EXACTLY AS IT DID.

This alone is unprecedented and I would love if someone could explain it away as coincidence, and it doesn't stop there.

This source has compiled a list of the trading and also explained much of what went on.


Financial transactions in the days before the attack suggest that certain individuals used foreknowledge of the attack to reap huge profits. 1 The evidence of insider trading includes:

* Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines

* Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group

* Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America

* Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon

* Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes


911research.wtc7.net...
Everything is very well documented with links to sources of information


I looked a bit into the reinsurance short sales, but was unable to find hard numbers...


SHORT-SELLING OF INSURANCE
Spokesmen for British securities regulators and the AXA Group also confirmed yesterday that investigations are continuing. The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of the options. Rohini Pragasam, a bank spokeswoman, declined comment.


Cached telegraph.uk page


The figure excluded other unusual trades involving insurance companies with significant exposure to damage claims resulting from the attacks. These include Munich Re of Germany, which expects to pay out more than $1.5 billion, and the AXA Group, a French firm, which could be on the hook for $550 million. Read more: www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2001/09/29/MN186128.DTL#ixzz1P5NIlDH0


www.sfgate.com.../chronic le/archive/2001/09/29/MN186128.DTL

I find it obnoxious that I cannot post that link. Wackbag.com would be able to handle it. Here, let me post it without actually making it a link so people can copypasta into their browsers if they so desire.

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/29/MN186128.DTL

just put a double-u double-u double-u in front of that bad boy


Also, the source attempting to rationalize the trades and explain them away as coincidence,THIS ONE, has a bit of an agenda. Not once does it mention any of the other anomalous trades, especially Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanely, which were as directly affected as the airlines, and I seriously doubt that their omission would just be an "oversight." I don't like manipulative pieces that seem geared to sway my opinion, and when important information is left out I am put in a position where I feel that there is an attempt to manipulate, rather then inform. With critical thinking I HOPE that I can wade through the information on both sides and achieve a greater understanding of the situation.


Also, it makes an argument to refute, instead of refuting an actual argument.


If you were going to plan something as complex as taking down those towers, why wouldn't you have made a billion or $10 billion betting on oil or shorting the NASDAQ?"


Nobody said that those who planned 911 did the short selling. All that is being said is that someone or someones were able to profit from advanced knowledge of 911.




Wow must of missed that terrorist attack in 2000. Those in the know must of thought the attacks were going to happen in 2000, not 2001.


Well now seriously, let's "put" the ridicule aside. This is a bit of a straw man argument. Spikes of "put" options don't equal suspicion of terrorist activity, they only equal "near certainty" of a stock price dipping. I wouldn't be surprised if those spikes were caused by some type of insider knowledge, but to immediately say, "I guess they thought terror was coming," is absolutely not the case, and to accuse your opponents of saying that is very disingenuous, but, it could lead to the advancement of your argument if others are willing to follow you down the road of faulty logic. Hopefully I have brought some more numbers to the table that separates random insider knowledge and knowledge that would specifically influence multiple stock prices simultaneously.

I think those playing the hedge game should all be investigated, but that's more my own personal suspicion of anyone profiting from the misfortune of others.

Here's an interesting side note: Congressmen are allowed to trade based on knowledge the acquire doing their jobs, even if that knowledge would otherwise be considered "insider" and profit is a certainty. But that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this thread, just keep it in mind whenever you think those in government are out for anyone but themselves.


Many people are aware that it’s illegal for business executives to engage in “insider trading,” the practice of buying and selling stocks based upon information not available to the general public. Incredibly, however, those laws do not apply to members of Congress or to their staffs. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com...



Anyway, in conclusion, I hope that someone can come along and explain this away. I'd like to sleep at night.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 01:56 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.


Yep one of the most profitable in history you tell me the crooks who did it aren't still running things

heh Time to man up and give them the old Icelandic heave America!



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join