SEC: There was no pre 9/11 option trading on the attacks.

You might have heard but on April 30th the SEC released the results to a investigation they started on the day after 9/11. They concluded it not to long after, as it appears a copy of the report(released here nsarchive.files.wordpress.com... ) was sent to the Commission in may 02.

As you might figure, they found all supposed insider trading was a coincidence at best and was the result of certain traders strategies. All of the traders with suspicious trades were identified and investigated and cleared. As well as all of the hijackers were investigated to see if anyone involved with the attacks had trading accounts.

There is a story on AOLnews called "SEC Found No Sign 9/11 Conspirators Traded on Plot" here www.aolnews.com... which reviews the report as well.

It appears that all of these theories and stories about put options being done with some type of insider knowledge were wrong, according to the official story at least. Haven't had a chance to read the entire SEC report yet but will make sure to post any excerpts worth while.

Is this the same SEC that protected Madoff all these years?

The same SEC that had their people watching porn while the economy crumbles?

Yes it is!

reply to post by Grey Magic


Right, this is really no surprise whether there was foul play or not.

I trust the federal government to tattle on its own corruption like I would expect a murderer to turn themselves in. Only on a rare, rare occasion, does someone with a conscience come forward and fess up out of feeling guilty.

reply to post by bsbray11


There's no question about that.

It's apparent that from very early after the attacks they decided that no one would be held responsible for any failures that lead up to 9/11 or that occurred on 9/11. Period.

Originally posted by Grey Magic
Is this the same SEC that protected Madoff all these years?

The same SEC that had their people watching porn while the economy crumbles?

Yes it is!

This can't be stressed enough, their track record on their investigation skills seems to be notoriously bad.

That being said, I just finished reading the report, although they give the impression that the amount of people investigated was immense, I also got the impression that they relied on the very firms they were investigating to inform them of anything or anyone who conducted suspicious trading.

The report was unremarkable frankly, simply a overwhelming reassurance that the securities firms had nothing to do with, and were not used by anyone in anyway to profit from the attacks.

They included graphs with all trades for both airlines in question from Aug 27th to Sept 10th, which was the time period for their investigation.

They also investigated stocks(during that time period) in the insurance business, financial services, defense and aerospace, security providers, and travel & leisure services.



BTW, it should be noted that this is not new news, the 9/11 Commission reported the SEC's findings in their report. What IS news was that the SEC report in question was released on April 30th. Supposedly due to Obama's push for more transparency.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by PersonalChoice]

reply to post by PersonalChoice


Nothing but another cover-up just like the NIST report and the 911-commission report there is nothing believable here. As if we should take their word for it, the SEC really thinks Americans are really stupid. There is enough evidence to prove that SEC is corrupt to the bone.
The problem here is there is no such thing as a perfect cover up, there is “always” something important over looked and it takes no genius to figure it out.

[color=gold]Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading lead directly into the CIA`s Highest Ranks

CIA Executive Director "Buzzy" Krongard managed Firm that handled "put" Options on UAL

Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That evidence also demonstrates that, in the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the "put options" on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency. Until 1997 A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker's Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard's last position at Banker's Trust (BT) was to oversee "private client relations." In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.

www.globalresearch.ca...

[color=gold]Think that the SEC Is Corrupt? Meet Gary Aguirre

www.davemanuel.com...

[color=gold]The SEC on Madoff: Corrupt? No. Incompetent? Yeah

The inspector general looking into the SEC's baffling failure to investigate Bernard Madoff finds no corruption -- no strings pulled at high levels to call off the dogs, no bribes, no cronies helping cronies. It does find ridiculous, maddening and repeated failures to respond to extremely specific allegations, as far back as 1992. We knew much of this already, of course. But seeing it in print from the IG is still amazing. If the SEC and its nearly $1 billion budget can't respond to tips such as these, what the #&%!!*$ were they doing down there?

The first complaint, brought to the SEC's attention in 1992, related to allegations that an unregistered investment company was offering "100%" safe investments with high and extremely consistent rates of return over significant periods of time to "special" customers. The SEC actually suspected the investment company was operating a Ponzi scheme...
The second complaint was very specific and different versions were provided to the SEC in May 2000, March 2001 and October 2005. The complaint submitted in 2005 was entitled "The World's Largest Hedge Fund is a Fraud" and detailed approximately 30 red flags indicating that Madoffwas operating a Ponzi scheme, a scenario it described as "highly likely."
In May 2003, the SEC received a third complaint from a respected Hedge Fund Manager identifying numerous concerns about Madoffs strategy and purported returns, questioning whether Madoff was actually trading options in the volume he claimed, noting that Madoffs strategy and purported returns were not duplicable by anyone else, and stating Madoffs strategy had no correlation to the overall equity markets in oyer 10 years. According to an SEC manager, the Hedge Fund Manager's complaint laid out issues that were "indicia of a Ponzi scheme."

Read on.

weblogs.baltimoresun.com...

reply to post by PersonalChoice


Is this the same SEC that let ENRON off the hook and stonewalled all investigations? And the same SEC which created the phoney derivatives market so insiders could have special access to the looting of America?

AOL is company run. CIA owned. But hey, could be true. I heard that one time a long time ago, someone pitched a snowball into hell, and it survived. But come to think of it, I think I read that on an AOL news feed.

Cheers-
Phil

The SEC didn't create the derivatives market.

More pertinently, I know that "shorted airline" stocks have reached sacred cow status for 9/11 Truth, but can someone explain why you would short those stocks if you wanted to remain inconspicuous?

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
As you might figure, they found all supposed insider trading was a coincidence at best and was the result of certain traders strategies. All of the traders with suspicious trades were identified and investigated and cleared. As well as all of the hijackers were investigated to see if anyone involved with the attacks had trading accounts.

And how are we supposed to take that seriously? One it's coming from the SEC. Two the SEC got blown up with many many records on 9/11.

We know that Frank Lowy AC and Larry Silverstein made a fortune off the collapse of the WTC and the Silverstein may very well have been planning to "Pull it" in regards to building 7.

What else was in that building?

Sometimes I think they might have been the real target and the other towers were just collateral damage. They needed to run air liners into the towers to cover their demolition of WTC7.

And if it wasn't known beforehand why when the emergency started didn't the mayor and everyone else head on over to their command bunker located right in that very building? Why did they set up somewhere else?

Probably because Giuliani knew beforehand the building was coming down and Silverstein told him.

What happened the very day before 9/11? Didn't 2-3 trillion get wiped off the markets? How do we know this wasn't just to cover that up?

[edit on 4-5-2010 by belial259]

Originally posted by belial259

And how are we supposed to take that seriously?

You can't, of course. You are a conspiracist. Anybody that says anything that doesn't comply with your conspiracy beliefs must be in on the cover up also. Just add one more organization to the list of conspirators. What could it hurt?

[edit on 4-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Just add one more organization to the list of conspirators. What could it hurt?

Especially when all a truther needs to do, to make it true to other truthers, is to repeat it a few times, with zero substantiation.

WRITING IT IN ALL CAPS HELPS TOO!!!! And lots of exclamation marks!!!!111!!!11

The more you use, the more forcefully you're trying to make your point. And obviously, when a truther feels so strongly about an issue to use lotsa caps and exclamation marks, the statement he/she's making has a higher probability of being true.

Didn't you know?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Especially when all a truther needs to do, to make it true to other truthers, is to repeat it a few times, with zero substantiation.

WRITING IT IN ALL CAPS HELPS TOO!!!! And lots of exclamation marks!!!!111!!!11

The more you use, the more forcefully you're trying to make your point. And obviously, when a truther feels so strongly about an issue to use lotsa caps and exclamation marks, the statement he/she's making has a higher probability of being true.

Didn't you know?

I figured that was the case but I wasn't sure if that was just part of the disinfo debunker conspiracy.

I think it also helps if you type "ABSOLUTE 100% PROOF" and/or "SMOKING GUN" as a preface.

They still have it all wrong, you know. It WAS a conspiracy, you see, but the whole thing was orchestrated and executed by Gary Condit just to distract us all from the Chandra Levy murder story which ran as headlines for 6 months prior to this event. It should be 100% ABSOLUTELY CLEAR to anybody using their brain.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
You can't, of course. You are a conspiracist. Anybody that says anything that doesn't comply with your conspiracy beliefs must be in on the cover up also.

Excuse me? Do we have a problem here? This is ATS and you've just posted an ad hominem only attack against a "conspiracist" (if that is even a word) without even bothering to offer me a rebuttal for my "conspiracy beliefs"

I don't take what the SEC is saying on this matter seriously because of what happened in the days before 9/11.



Don't troll me again or I'll ignore you. Discretion is the better part of valour. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. It's better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Get the picture?

If you don't want to contribute to these forums and speak to "conspiracist" then just leave because you picked the wrong place.

Originally posted by belial259

Excuse me? Do we have a problem here? This is ATS and you've just posted an ad hominem only attack against a "conspiracist" (if that is even a word) without even bothering to offer me a rebuttal for my "conspiracy beliefs"

My sardonic ad hominem was a rebuttal, and my contribution, to your stated beliefs about the SEC. Also, "conspiracist" is a much of a word as "truther" is.

Your post wove quite a tale of suspected conspiracies and now that another agency has reported something not in compliance with said tale, you unilaterally dismiss it. Such selective reasoning needed to be pointed out and I'm sorry you have difficulty hearing it. Next time I'll buffer it with terms and grammar I think you'll be able to handle.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Your post wove quite a tale of suspected conspiracies

I posed a hypothesis for discussion. By way of response you called me a name.

and now that another agency has reported something not in compliance with said tale, you unilaterally dismiss it.

I haven't unilaterally dismissed it. I'm still open to the idea they are correct, but I'd like to hear it from an independent commission instead of a corrupt and ineffective government regulator doing a review.

Such selective reasoning needed to be pointed out and I'm sorry you have difficulty hearing it. Next time I'll buffer it with terms and grammar I think you'll be able to handle.

I see little reason for you to exert yourself. Especially since you seem to have a problem distinguishing between statements of facts and questions. There is a special symbol that a person can use to signify a question, be it real or rhetorical. It looks a little like this; ?

Unless there is something constructive you'd like to add to this discussion. I'm not going to debate this issue any further with you.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by belial259]

Originally posted by belial259

I see little reason for you to exert yourself. Especially since you seem to have a problem distinguishing between statements of facts and questions. There is a special symbol that a person can use to signify a question, be it real or rhetorical. It looks a little like this; ?

Unless there is something constructive you'd like to add to this discussion. I'm not going to debate this issue any further with you.

I'm sorry, sir. The "questions" you posted were rhetorical and most of them you answered yourself immediately afterwards. This was the device you employed in weaving your tale of conspiracies.

I'm surprised that you're open to the idea that the SEC could be correct, especially when you "asked" how we could take them seriously. But let's take that at face value. What sort of "independent commission" would you recommend we use to confirm the SEC report? Who should pay for that investigation?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm surprised that you're open to the idea that the SEC could be correct, especially when you "asked" how we could take them seriously. But let's take that at face value. What sort of "independent commission" would you recommend we use to confirm the SEC report? Who should pay for that investigation?

I wasn't really a fan of the idea of a financial tax and a new super regulator proposed at the recent g20 but I really don't see much of an option. Inevitably we are going to have to have a global regulator. And it will probably be funded by a transaction fee of some sort.

My own national regulator. The ACCC is fairly effective, but it can't deal with issues outside the country. But it can break up monopolies and encourage competition and enforce fair trade and consumer protection. America needs something similar I believe.

This issue may have some link to the 9/11, but they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Even if there was market manipulation on that day I don't think there would be any case against it because it happens all the time. Insider knowledge isn't a smoking gun like some think it is.

Obviously from the Israeli agents that were sent to observe 9/11. And operation Able Danger, there was some prior knowledge of an attack.

I myself was working security at the airport in Brisbane at the time and about a week beforehand we were told to pick up our act because there might be some kind of attack on airplanes but we weren't told anything specific about where or when or how.

So anyone that could see intelligence briefings or knew someone that could might have been able to put two and two together.

But at the end of the day though Frank Lowy AC of Westfield fame became the richest man in Australia for a time after this event. And I've always suspected foul play on his part.

"He who profits by a crime commits it"

I think whoever ends up being the regulator needs to go back 10 years and take a very close look at everything that has been happening in the market, because if we can't bring a stop to rampant insider trading and speculation we won't have a market.

reply to post by belial259


It sounds to me like you're more in favor of some sort of a global financial watchdog for future trading events. I didn't catch where you said which independent commission was going to confirm/deny the SEC's claims in the OP and who would pay for it.

You did ask why we should believe them. The SEC (when not downloading tons of porn apparently), does indeed investigate and prosecute insider trading. They did suspect insider trading regarding the 911 catastrophe and according to the OP, all of the traders with suspicious trades were identified and investigated and cleared. If we can't believe them it would be because 1. the SEC is outright lying about all of the traders they suspected, or 2. the suspected traders all were able to profit from insider info and somehow all fool the SEC into thinking otherwise. Neither seems likely and either scenario would require some strong supporting evidence.

reply to post by PersonalChoice

As other posters have pointed out, the SEC doesn't have much of a reputation as overseer of securities trading. The derivatives market lollapalooza made that abundantly clear. I just started to read the report linked by the OP and I have to say that I am already troubled by what I am reading . . . on page one.

In every instance where we noticed unusual trading before the attack we were able to determine -- either through direct communication with those responsible for the trading or a review of trading records -- that the trading was consistent with a legitimate trading strategy.

I admit that I have not read the whole report. Further, it is unlikely that I would understand it if I did, not being a stock market guy, but when "direct communication" with a suspect isn't supplemented with aggressive investigative techniques designed to verify a story told, I have no faith in the results.

I suspect this was a "softball" style investigation, maybe even a "beachball" style investigation, like the 911 Commission itself.