Black 9/11: A Walk on the Dark Side (Insider Trading)

This is not my work and can be found below:

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

Black 9/11: A Walk on the Dark Side by Mark H. Gaffney

This paper will review the evidence for informed, or insider, trading in the days and hours before the 9/11 attacks...Ernst Welteke, President of the German Deutsche Bundesbank, told reporters that “a preliminary review by German regulators and bank researchers showed there were highly suspicious sales of shares in airlines and insurance companies, along with major trades in gold and oil markets, before September 11 that suggest….advance knowledge of the attacks. Welteke said that his researchers came across….almost irrefutable proof of insider trading.” Welteke was blunt: “What we found makes us sure that people connected to the terrorists must have been trying to profit from this tragedy...

And more to read at the foreignpolicyjournal website.

*** Interesting but I like reading about trading and share prices.

Peace and keep researching 9/11

reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy


Yeah, but when the 9/11 Commission investigated these claims, their findings were that the trading was coincidentally innocuous. They found that the investor(s) had NO TIES TO AL-QUEDA.

Wonder why?
Didn't the FBI declare that the terrorists attacks couldn't be traced back to OBL?

Furthermore, why didn't the SEC, or the 9/11 Commission find out who the investor(s) did have ties to?
--No need to do that. They found the Quren in one of the hi-jackers cars outside the airport.

LOL
What a farce.

Money = power

Follow the trail of money, find the rats.

Just give us names of those involved! come on.. we all know there was insider trader.. it was reported shortly after... when will those investigating thise, release names of those involved with the shadiness? thats the important information here... and if for some reason we can't provide names... well then the market is BS, and there needs to be more regulations... I can't buy a bottle of liquor without signing my name, but I can buy millions in gold? millions in an airliner losing money? how so? If names don't start getting released, there should be a witch hunt...

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.
This is one of the issues I still have pertaining to 9/11. I've always felt that more should have been done to track down these traders and figure out what, if any, relation they had to the attacks. Whether they had ties to terrorists, government agencies, intelligence groups (foriegn or domestic) or whoever would, in my opinion, have some bearing on the issues of who was ultimately responsible, and who had prior info relating to the attacks. Important data, I would think, for anyone investigating 9/11, and data which has, it seems, been mostly ignored.

"Follow the money" may be so often repeated as to have become a platitude, but only because it's usually right.

reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy


The naysayers will be here shortly to tell you you're wrong. Most of them will point to a snopes piece that says the FBI cannot find any ties between terrorists orgs. and the trading.
Well...duh! Terrorists didn't make the money play. The question is who did?
The trading and money trail is one of those things that the OS believers cannot get rid of.

SEC report to the USDoJ, and the FBI.

nsarchive.files.wordpress.com...

Read it. Don't quotemine it though. I know, you all will tempted, but read it in it's entirety.

reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy

I'm disappointed. We've made it this far, and noone has brought up Rumsfeld and the $2.3 trillion yet

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy

 

I'm disappointed. We've made it this far, and noone has brought up Rumsfeld and the $2.3 trillion yet

Way to attempt to derail the topic at hand.
A Typical.

So perhaps it wasn't principle but profit behind 9/11. Its struck me that the New York Stock Exchange had to shut after this atrocity and its almost as though this set in motion some carefully constructed plan.

Originally posted by Lynda101
So perhaps it wasn't principle but profit behind 9/11. Its struck me that the New York Stock Exchange had to shut after this atrocity and its almost as though this set in motion some carefully constructed plan.

It's all about profit. Every war ever fought has been about profit for at least some participants. When people who have business interests like Dick Cheney, Halliburton, are involved how can people not see the obvious? Or how about Dwight M. Williams who was the Chief Security Officer of Homeland Security, and also heads Veritas Capital Fund/DynCorp that is the 2nd biggest profiteer from the Iraq war.

Your government and your military is being ran by the capitalists 'old boys club' who's only interest is profits for their companies.

9-11 was to increase markets for companies who's market is pretty limited, especially in peace time.

Originally posted by Lynda101
So perhaps it wasn't principle but profit behind 9/11. Its struck me that the New York Stock Exchange had to shut after this atrocity and its almost as though this set in motion some carefully constructed plan.

Yeah, nothing says profit and greed like shutting down banks and equities markets for 5 days and frightening the entire population into a economic freeze.

Why is it that they can nail the kid in the mailroom for some M&A law firm when he and his girlfriend borrow the money to buy a couple of hundred shares on some corporate take over (with insider knowledge) but they cant get the people who made millions and more important had inside pre-knowledge of the biggest terrorist attack on our soil (non-state sponsored act of war) in the history of the republic (if not the world)? It makes no sense unless some of those "insiders" had sensitive US intelligence connections.

reply to post by hooper


You gotta admit some people do get incredibly rich from the profits of war, its more of a long term thing, one step back for two forward so to speak

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by hooper

 

You gotta admit some people do get incredibly rich from the profits of war, its more of a long term thing, one step back for two forward so to speak

Not as much as you think. The big money isn't in fighting wars, its in preparing to fighting wars. New planes, aircraft carriers, etc. Real wars, particularly ones against fairly primitive opponents don't call for expensive sophisticated systems. There was more profit made not fighting the Soviets then there is in actually fighting AQ.

Originally posted by hooper

Not as much as you think. The big money isn't in fighting wars, its in preparing to fighting wars. New planes, aircraft carriers, etc. Real wars, particularly ones against fairly primitive opponents don't call for expensive sophisticated systems. There was more profit made not fighting the Soviets then there is in actually fighting AQ.

Wow, just when I thought you'd said it all, you go and drop a bomb like this one. Did you put any thought into this, or did you purposefully craft this idiotic group of sentences in order to distract members and deviate their attention from what this thread is about. I'm going to quickly sum up why this idea is absurd.

1. New weapons cost more than old ones and regardless of who the U.S. military is killing, they will be using the new weapons because they've got to justify their massive budget, if for no other reason.
2. There is no logical reason why the U.S. would spend more money preparing for war rather than fighting one they're already in. Demand would be higher and thus prices DURING war. The only reason that is even remotely logical is if the U.S. military was far smaller in size due to casualty and had to scale back its efforts, which clearly was not the case.
3. The only reason the Cold War cost more is because it lasted longer, if "The War on Terror" lasts for 30+ years its cost will overshadow the cost of its predecessor by an unimaginable scale, duh.
4. If those "fairly primative" opponents already bested the most costly military defense system the world has ever known, as YOU say they did, wouldn't the logical reaction be to spare no expense to stop their evil deeds? (and isn't this exactly what has happened?)
5. Why bother you're just going to try and tell me how we had no national defense prior to 9/11 anyway, but where did all that Cold War spending go, huh?

Hooper doesn't realise there are a lot of private companies that make money from war.

He must really believe that arms manufacturers supply their weapons and ammo for free.

Not to mention food supply and everything else it takes to supply an invading army.

Someone is making money off of all of it.

But the real benefits come down the road, wars are not really done for instant wealth, even though that happens, they're investments in future deals.

It's the big push for the domination of the worlds market, the US had to ramp it up due to the dollar losing support. The capitalist pyramid scheme works the same way for countries as it does for people, there is always someone who wants to control the global market. Capitalists in the US will sell the country down the road in order for them to maintain their global dominance. They don't care about the US or people at all, they care about their profit. They expect us to be patriotic to their flag, yet they are not patriotic themselves, they have no loyalty to anything but themselves.

Perhaps someone could explain why insider trading in any way corroborates the notion of an inside job. Obviously under the "OS" some individuals were party to the fact that the attacks were about to happen - the terrorists and their backers - and so it would have been possible for them to place the trades.

I suspect at least one answer will express disbelief that Arabs or subcontinental Asians are able to participate in the option market...

reply to post by budaruskie

Wow, just when I thought you'd said it all, you go and drop a bomb like this one. Did you put any thought into this, or did you purposefully craft this idiotic group of sentences in order to distract members and deviate their attention from what this thread is about. I'm going to quickly sum up why this idea is absurd.

I write to the intelligence level of the audience.

1. New weapons cost more than old ones and regardless of who the U.S. military is killing, they will be using the new weapons because they've got to justify their massive budget, if for no other reason.

You really aren't too familiar with business, the military and politics are you? The money is not in the final production of new weapon systems - its in the years of "cost plus" development. Do you really think a large military supplier forgoes all profit until they start to manufacture a final product? Wake up.

2. There is no logical reason why the U.S. would spend more money preparing for war rather than fighting one they're already in. Demand would be higher and thus prices DURING war.

Demand for what - bullets and boots? Thats not where the real profit margins are located. Its the development of complex systems and platforms. New technology development, etc. Been listening lately to all the talk about the competition to provide mid air refueling planes? Big competition between Boeing and Airbus - Boeing won out. Heard anything about the big contracts for supplying bullets? No? Wonder why?

3. The only reason the Cold War cost more is because it lasted longer, if "The War on Terror" lasts for 30+ years its cost will overshadow the cost of its predecessor by an unimaginable scale, duh.

Wow. The naivete is simply astounding. You want to compare the cost and profit for building Humvee vs. a fleet of nuclear submarines? Or an aircraft carrier group? Or a bomber wing?

4. If those "fairly primative" opponents already bested the most costly military defense system the world has ever known, as YOU say they did, wouldn't the logical reaction be to spare no expense to stop their evil deeds? (and isn't this exactly what has happened?)

The problem isn't the expense, its the nature of the "expense".

5. Why bother you're just going to try and tell me how we had no national defense prior to 9/11 anyway, but where did all that Cold War spending go, huh?

You really have to start thinking these things through, read a little history, that kind of stuff.

reply to post by hooper

I write to the intelligence level of the audience.

No, you actually write to your intelligence level, which does seem to be fairly low.

You really aren't too familiar with business, the military and politics are you? The money is not in the final production of new weapon systems - its in the years of "cost plus" development. Do you really think a large military supplier forgoes all profit until they start to manufacture a final product? Wake up.

Right, and you obviously aren't too familiar with addressing actual statements. I do not disagree with the fact that "cost plus" development goes a long way to bankrupt our country, but I never said anything about military suppliers forgoing all profit blah blah blah. What you are insinuating is that our military has stopped all "cost plus" development of weapons systems because the "War on Terror" doesn't require them. You should maybe check the actual budgets of the military and those contracts you refer to before and after 9/11 in order to gain some perspective on reality.

Demand for what - bullets and boots? Thats not where the real profit margins are located. Its the development of complex systems and platforms. New technology development, etc. Been listening lately to all the talk about the competition to provide mid air refueling planes? Big competition between Boeing and Airbus - Boeing won out. Heard anything about the big contracts for supplying bullets? No? Wonder why?

So bullets and boots are the only costs of war now? Your own reference actually disproves your line of thinking. Those contracts you speak of are referring to weapons deployed in the "War on Terror" are they not?

Wow. The naivete is simply astounding. You want to compare the cost and profit for building Humvee vs. a fleet of nuclear submarines? Or an aircraft carrier group? Or a bomber wing?

Well, at least you are recognizing that we need Humvee's to transport bullets and boots now. Of course, you are leaving out the fact that we are still building aircraft and ships...ever heard of U.S.S. New York? Yes, the naivete is astounding.

The problem isn't the expense, its the nature of the "expense".

What? Have you been drinking? This is completely non-sensical and in no way addresses my comment.

You really have to start thinking these things through, read a little history, that kind of stuff.

Pot says, "hey kettle, you're black!"