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.

 

SEC: Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 Put Options *MUST READ*

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   

SEC: Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 Put Options *MUST READ*


www.washingtonsblog.com

U.S. investigators want to know whether Osama bin Laden was the ultimate "inside trader" — profiting from a tragedy he's suspected of masterminding to finance his operation. Authorities are also investigating possibly suspicious trading in Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Japan.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
This is a MUST read... This article points out that people with large amounts of investsments KNEW something bad was gonna happen on 9/11/01. Further down in the article it also quotes 9/11 Commissioners who were frustrated in the FBI/CIA covering important information, and how it was DIRECTLY linked to the White House...

www.washingtonsblog.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Stinks to high heaven and for me has always been one of the most compelling arguments in favor of complicity by some in the government.

This should have been a slam dunk in the early days of the investigation. The fact that it wasn't pursued reveals much, imo.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
There will be many on Wall Street who know exactly who made those trades and the money from the attacks.
The Us government put up blocks at every opportunity to derail any investigation of those suspicious trades, which indicates direct involvement and knowledge of not only the financial trades but the attacks themselves.

To date, there has been no real investigation allowed. Hell, they spent several times as much investigating Clinton's BJ than they did on the 9/11 attacks!



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
MORE FROM THE ARTICLE.....

FMR Corp. spokeswoman Anne Crowley, said her firm -- which owns the giant Fidelity family of mutual funds in Boston -- has already provided "account and transaction" information to investigators, and had no objection to the new procedures announced yesterday. Crowley declined to describe the nature of the information previously shared with the government.


So the effort to track down the source of the puts was certainly quite substantial.

What were the results of the investigation?

Apparently, we'll never know.

Specifically, David Callahan - executive editor of SmartCEO - submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the SEC regarding the pre-9/11 put options.

The SEC responded:

We have been advised that the potentially responsive records have been destroyed.
If the SEC had responded by producing documents showing that the pre-9/11 put options had an innocent explanation (such as a hedge made by a smaller airline), that would be udnerstandable.

If the SEC had responded by saying that the documents were classified as somehow protecting proprietary financial information, I wouldn't like it, but I would at least understand the argument.

But destroyed? Why?

Not the First Time

This is not the first destruction of documentary evidence related to 9/11.

I wrote in March:


As I pointed out in 2007:
The 9/11 Commission Report was largely based on a third-hand account of what tortured detainees said, with two of the three parties in the communication being government employees.
The official 9/11 Commission Report states:

Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot. Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses-sworn enemies of the United States-is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting.
In other words, the 9/11 Commissioners were not allowed to speak with the detainees, or even their interrogators. Instead, they got their information third-hand.

The Commission didn't really trust the interrogation testimony. For example, one of the primary architects of the 9/11 Commission Report, Ernest May, said in May 2005:

We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
it seems these players seem to keep comming up
again and again, and again
as in the pre trading in regards to the deep water horizon
S and F



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
That posted article is a MUST READ for anyone who has no doubts in the official 9/11 story. Why would the FBI/CIA lie to the 9/11 Commission, and why would the Bush Administration promote such a cover-up? Why? What is there to hide? Why would the CIA destroy interrogation tapes?

THIS IS WHY THE REMAINING 9/11 TERRORISTS NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC TRIAL, NOT A MILITERY TRIBUNAL! ! ! ! !

The cover-up has to stop, and the trial needs to go public!!!



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
It was my understanding that whoever placed the put options never collected on them. I had heard that Deutsche bank and Buzzy Krongard (CIA. Blackwater) were involved somehow.

Very good article though, many sources all stating the same thing; the White house either lied to us or fed us bad information about 9/11.

Now why would they do a thing like that?

What's getting scary is the paralells between 9/11 and the Gulf - "rescue workers don't need respirators, the air is fine", signs of foreknowlege - short selling etc. Repeat after me: Just another false flag in paradise.

PS - the remaining 9/11 terrorists? Did one survive the plane crashes? or do you mean Dick Cheney?

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Asktheanimals]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
A couple of things I don't understand re the "put" options, and especially the TM's tendency to take them as prima facie evidence of government involvement.

- why couldn't the options be placed by an associate of OBL, or KSM or some rich Saudi who knew about the plan?

- why would you place put options on airline stock in the first place? It's so obviously going to be suspicious. Why not short the dollar?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Well, that's the point.. It COULD be some foreign investor who knew about the attack before hand, BUT why would OUR government take extreme measures to cover it up? Why would our federal government assist these "foreign investors" by completely screwing w/ the 9/11 Commission Report?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
It's no longer even Conspiracy Theory, it's fact. 9/11 was an inside job.

The WhiteHouse , FBI AND the CIA went well out of their way to destroy evidence potentially revealing the truth of the entire matter.

And getting back to the OP's topic of PUT Options.

Guess where the SEC offices were located, and records pertaining to the these transactions were kept ?

None other than WTC Builiding 7.





posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
We can all debate how the WTC Buildings fell with different scientific views, but this can NOT be debated. The obvious cover-up, and destruction of evidence needs to be addressed.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
The article barely touches on AXA Groupe.

AXA Groupe subsidiary Alliance Capital Management is the main culprit in the put options plot.

AXA is also the bank linked with laundering Maurice Strong's Oil-for-Food scandal money.

I'm sure ATS's resident truthers need no introduction to the Maurice Strong and AXA CEO Henri de Castries theory/connection to 9/11.

Say, doesn't American Airlines' logo sorta look like "AXA"?

[edit on 15-6-2010 by JauntyFlannigan]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I've been curious about this for a long time, so thank you for posting.

It seems the money made on such airline trades was BRIEFLY talked about, as some serious bizarre trading was going on.

He would made money is a co-conspirator. I have a hunch there just may have been some patriots who made some money on this tragedy as well.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Well, that's the point.. It COULD be some foreign investor who knew about the attack before hand, BUT why would OUR government take extreme measures to cover it up? Why would our federal government assist these "foreign investors" by completely screwing w/ the 9/11 Commission Report?


That's a good point, and to be honest I don't know. To be frank I don't think it's evidence of government involvement in the actual plot, but it is of a piece with the general lack of cooperation that the administration showed the commission.

Why did they not cooperate? Well, the (excellent) article you link to is half the answer - they knew that they'd used the event to justify an illegal and disastrous war. The other half pertains to the complete lack of readiness and intelligence failures. America was shocked. But it was also - and this is key - embarrassed.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Well, that's the point.. It COULD be some foreign investor who knew about the attack before hand, BUT why would OUR government take extreme measures to cover it up? Why would our federal government assist these "foreign investors" by completely screwing w/ the 9/11 Commission Report?


That's a good point, and to be honest I don't know. To be frank I don't think it's evidence of government involvement in the actual plot, but it is of a piece with the general lack of cooperation that the administration showed the commission.

Why did they not cooperate? Well, the (excellent) article you link to is half the answer - they knew that they'd used the event to justify an illegal and disastrous war. The other half pertains to the complete lack of readiness and intelligence failures. America was shocked. But it was also - and this is key - embarrassed.


It's very interesting to actually look into and wonder why certain influential people did what they did... Here's another question to ask.. What has happened to this country since 9/11 happened? Aghanistan has become one of the top suppliers of drugs to America (before the invasion, drug farmers were executed) which resembles the Iran Contra (CIA drug importing). Not to mention all the oil from both Afghanistan and Iraq. More US influence around the world. Repressed right of the American People (Patriot Act). NOTHING GOOD HAS COME FROM THIS WAR ON TERROR..... NOTHING.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
 


I'm not so persuaded by the drug thing. Supply is at an almost record low since the invasion, not because of the efforts of the coalition or Nato, but due to simple economics. Over production has led to price falls and opium poppies are very intensive to farm. Wheat is now a better option for a lot of Afghan farmers.

The patriot act and the other things you mention are undesirable, but again are not good evidence of governmental involvement. Rather they just imply opportunism. America had the misfortune to have a load of ex-marxist neo-liberal crazies in charge at a critical moment. That, mixed with paranoia, overreaction and hubris, was a potent brew.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Those put options have always bothered me.I think there is reason to suspect it was insiders acting on tips from various intell shops and other sources perhaps.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
 

People in this thread might be interested in another thread pointing to government (Actually Federal Reserve Bank) interference in an investigation related to 9/11. One interesting thing about this thread is that a former money laundering investigator for the FED, the subject of news reports relating to this story, actually posted in the thread!

Important 9/11 Financial Anomally Revealed

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Bill Bergman
I've been googling myself in recent weeks, and would just like to thank the people contributing to this thread. This has some of the best discussion of my material that I've seen. Thanks, Leo, ipsedixit, et al.



Originally posted by ipsedixit
It might be well to remind people that Mr.Bergman was a money laundering specialist working for the Fed. He looked into the currency surge prior to 9/11 and found out that people were stocking up on $100 bills in the two months prior to 9/11. The figures seem to back him up, however interpreting these figures is a job for the detail oriented. He talked to his bosses about it.

When Mr. Bergman went back to look at the numbers in more detail he found that what was once available to him on the Fed's intranet was now password protected. His position at the Fed was then eliminated.


Basically someone (account holders in regular banks) had caused banks to request the FED, mainly the New York branch, to issue five billion dollars in $100 bills in the couple of months or so immediately prior to 9/11. This surge in the M1 money supply, which is basically liquid, immediately accessible currency (cash and checking accounts), was noticed by FED money laundering investigators, i.e., Mr. Bergman and colleagues. Its not hard to see why.

Here is a graphical representation of the "spike" in the M1 money supply that Mr. Bergman was investigating. It is from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis website.



When Mr. Bergman tried to nail down which accounts this money had gone into he was stopped by authorities at the FED who had initially OK'd his investigation. His own position at the FED was then eliminated.

One thing that occurred to me and which I mentioned in the thread was that prior to 9/11, the perps who were pulling off this caper must have had some degree of trepidation as to whether the plot would actually come off as planned. If it did not, there was a distinct possibility that they might become fugitives from the law . . . and in need of running money. Hence the need for the cash.

Another possibility mentioned was the liquidation of assets in the US by large Saudi and foreign investors aware of the plot who feared that their US assets could be frozen in the aftermath of the incident.

Knowing who requested the money might be very beneficial for anyone trying to understand the plot and who was behind it.

It is important to note, only the US government could influence the FED to halt an investigation that it had initiated on it's own.








[edit on 18-6-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
 


thought you might like this-

BBC Correspondent says MOSSAD did 9/11 and Iran doesn't want Nukes SEE INFO LINKS

www.youtube.com...




top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join