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.

 

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

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 





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.



Really? Remind me who we have nuked in the last 65 years? We've spent BILLIONS on our nuclear arsenal and to use your logic we should have used them regularly. So, tell me, WHO have we dropped them on lately?




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Everybody knows that nuclear bombs are made by nice, righteous people in order to stop TPTB from using their nasty consumable battlefield weapons.

And has anyone come up with a convincing reason why the anomalous trades could not have been performed by those with foreknowledge of the attack as per the "OS"?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


And has anyone come up with a convincing reason why the anomalous trades could not have been performed by those with foreknowledge of the attack as per the "OS"?

Not really, the world is a big place, but you gotta admit an inside job scenario is also in play for the whole of 9/11 if your gonna take a broad-stroke attitude of what is and is not possible.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


And has anyone come up with a convincing reason why the anomalous trades could not have been performed by those with foreknowledge of the attack as per the "OS"?

Not really, the world is a big place, but you gotta admit an inside job scenario is also in play for the whole of 9/11 if your gonna take a broad-stroke attitude of what is and is not possible.



So even if the trading is anomalous it doesn't prove anything. Except in some vague way related to your feeling that "something funny is going on".

This isn't really much of a smoking gun, is it?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


Actually this merits more examination. It's a stance I see a lot amongst Truthers. A point is introduced, usually a new piece of extraordinary evidence that "proves" an inside job. Gradually it is dismantled. Eventually the people most interested in pushing its veracity go quiet or grumble that although this may have been disproven, there still remains a "large number of questions", or somehow a miasma of doubt occasioned by all the other "facts". And that 9/11 Truth is thus still valid.

But not one of those facts has stood up to the same process. They all vanish when scrutinised in any depth. Yet Truthers manage to maintain the notion of a vast canopy of "unanswered questions" or "suspicious circumstances", none of which actually exists. And then they specifically invoke it as a backdrop to some recently disproved smoking gun.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Good points and it applies to both sides, of course I would guess the real evidence either way is shrouded in secrecy. All we can do is look at what evidence is there and try to make an informed decision.

www.sfgate.com.../chronicle/archive/2001/09/29/MN186128.DTL

On one day, UAL put option purchases were 25 times greater than the year-to-date average. In the month before the attacks, short sales jumped by 40 percent for UAL and 20 percent for American.

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.

A spokesman for the Securities and Exchange Commission declined to comment on a New York Times report yesterday that the SEC had found "benign" explanations for the trading activity.

I don't know if the SEC is a trusted body.

www.america.gov...

The 9/11 Commission investigated this issue in detail, concluding, “Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation.”

• For example, it stated, “much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American [Airlines stock] on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.”

back to the SFgate The money was made on Sept. 6, 7 and 10 in transactions involving United, American, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co., the center said. Morgan Stanley occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center; Merrill Lynch's headquarters offices were nearby.

Lots to find out about.


911blogger.com...

* 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton himself says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue.

* Similarly, 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ." . He also says that he had long feared that the investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking, and that it might take "a permanent 9/11 commission" to end the remaining mysteries of September 11.

* And 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America."

And was it NIST who took so long to admit 2.5 seconds freefall for Building 7?



edit on 8-3-2011 by yyyyyyyyyy because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2011 by yyyyyyyyyy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


Now, go and review the other times that more than an average number of options were placed on the airlines that year. The options placed in September 2001 were only abnormal because of the events of Septermeber 11th.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Now, go and review the other times that more than an average number of options were placed on the airlines that year. The options placed in September 2001 were only abnormal because of the events of Septermeber 11th.

Got the link? I tried quote.morningstar.com... but I only found a long term share chart
edit on 8-3-2011 by yyyyyyyyyy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 





Insight reported that there were repeated spikes in put options on American Airlines during the year before Sept. 11 (June 19 with 2,951 puts, June 15 with 1,144 puts, April 16 with 1,019 and Jan. 8 with 1,315 puts). In the same period, United Airlines had slightly more action (Aug. 8 with 1,678 puts, July 20 with 2,995, April 6 with 8,212 and March 13 with 8,072).


archive.newsmax.com...



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by budaruskie
 





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.



Really? Remind me who we have nuked in the last 65 years? We've spent BILLIONS on our nuclear arsenal and to use your logic we should have used them regularly. So, tell me, WHO have we dropped them on lately?


If you would, please, explain how my logic requires that we should have used nuclear weapons "regularly". Frankly, I can't follow your line of reasoning here. I'm just pointing out that the price tag on weapons in 2011 or 2002 for that matter is and was higher than the price tag on weapons developed in say 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, etc. Please, show me how my logic is flawed in this regard. Also, I'd like to point out that weapon systems are not the only systems being funded by the DOD in regards to the "War on Terror", there is the whole cost of selling war through media, intelligence, TSA checkpoints, etc. You may have missed the point here. Any new war is going to cost more, at least comparatively, to any of its predecessors. If maybe the "War on Terror" had any forseeable end then maybe there would be an argument to make, but old DICK said himself that he could see this war lasting 50+ years. Or I could have just said one word, Blackwater.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
To me the most important line in the article was this one:



CIA’s long and ugly history of staging international terrorism


The fact is that abroad the CIA is well known for staging terrorism to get the populations of the target nations to fall in line with US foreign policy is not known to the average American. If it were more of these average Americans would have a lot less reason to doubt that 9/11 was done by American contract spooks and not Arabs in caves in Afghanistan. The truth of this will become known. The strategy of the American contract spooks involved (Kroll) I think is to keep the American people in the dark for long enough for their crimes to be put on the shoulders of some dead person that used to work for them.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


We keep building nukes, price tag goes up every year on them. So again, using your logic....should be using them somewhere.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by budaruskie
 


We keep building nukes, price tag goes up every year on them. So again, using your logic....should be using them somewhere.


I can play your game.

Using your logic Santa Claus plays bridge with Michael Jackson and Uncle Sam every third full moon when it rains cat food on Mt. Olympus.
What, the hell does that mean, there is no logic whatsoever in that statement


Exactly.

You have already admitted that the price of new weapons is more than the price of old ones, which is exactly what I said. But, somehow you acertained that I said we must use the weapons, which I never did. Here is a clear logical analogy of my line of thinking to help clear this up.

Does food cost more now than it did in any previous decade? This is mainly due to inflation, because the process of manufacturing it has actually become more efficient over time, so logically this same inflation will affect say the price of war in the same way. Beyond that, does gas or food or shelter cost more before a hurricane or afterwards while the power is out? This is due to supply and demand, which is also logically comparable to the price of goods of war before and after the start of a war. These are very simple concepts, I hope this helps.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
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...


The above comments again highlight to me how your type are either ridiculously stupid or are getting paid to act dumb....

If you had read the OP's article you would have been presented with compelling evidence spanning three pages that would c-l-e-a-r-l-y e-x-p-l-a-i-n exactly what you have just asked !

Jeez....at least try to give the impression your on top of your game.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 





. 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.


Silly me. You made a statement about killing people using the new weapons to justify the massive budget. I assumed you meant, using the new, expensive weapons to kill people when you meant.....I have no idea what you meant.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by budaruskie
 





. 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.


Silly me. You made a statement about killing people using the new weapons to justify the massive budget. I assumed you meant, using the new, expensive weapons to kill people when you meant.....I have no idea what you meant.


Geez...really. Maybe I could have said it better, so I'll give it a try. When I say that no matter who the military is killing they'll be using the most modern weapons I mean precisely this. The M-1 was a rifle used extensively by the Marines and Army for many years and was an infantry workhorse. Undoubtedly, the U.S. gov't spent a butt-load of money on them and more than likely even spent money on the development of the rifle. However, infantry in (the) Iraq
and everywhere else are no longer issued this weapon, they have M-16's, M-4's, etc. instead. Are you catching my drift yet? Even these rifles are no longer the cutting edge in rifle tech, as the military CONTINUES TO SUBSIDIZE THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW RIFLES, which aren't necessarily deployed at this moment.

Look at the F-16, F-18, and F-22 for instance. There has only been one F-18 lost in combat I've ever heard of, and the F-16 is frankly still superior to most other countries fighters, yet we continued to develop the F-22. Now that it is deployed, we continue to develop even more sophisticated aircraft. The "War on Terror" is exactly what justifies this expenditure. Get it now?

Hooper said that the money is in prepping for war not fighting one. I just said, that ludicrous because the price of these weapons go UP when there is an ACTUAL need for them, rather than just a perceived one. I'm not denying that massive fortunes are not made in prepping for war, but even more massive ones are made fighting them. Plus, actual wars have certain fringe benefits, namely, the spoils of war and the convenient consequence of creating an enemy to continue to prep for into the future.

You said my logic required that we use nukes because we developed them. That isn't necessarily true. My logic required that we continue to develop them as well as any possible successors, and that their price would increase...which YOU state is the case. Besides, the M.O.A.B., J.L.T.V, Javalin, and myriad of drone planes are weapons created specifically for the "War on Terror", or at least their expense is justified by it. Seriously, if you still don't get it...you never will.

Oh yeah just one more thing. If say a M.O.A.B costs $10 million, when one gets used in a real war, we have to spend you guessed it, another $10+ million to replace it, right?
edit on 3/10/2011 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


I agree, if you look at history since WWII there has always been an 'enemy' for our military to protect us from, communism was milked for a long time but they've found a better 'enemy' to milk now, one that can not be stopped because they can be anyone, anyone they label a 'terrorist'. The new buzz word to instill fear in the population for their brave military to come and protect you from. Oh and justify massive expenditure on arms, paid for by us, and profited from by a few. Millions die for someones bank account. How can anyone think they wouldn't kill Americans on 911 when we know damn well they are sending boys overseas to die for their greed.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Insider Trading,one of the many mysteries of 9/11 that just won't go away.We have all of these unusual transactions and the Commission attempts to downplay them.I never understood why until I saw the name of Walker and the other Wall Street big names surrounding this situation.Expecting the SEC to actually investigate this is laughable
you look at the way they handled the matter and it seems to me that they did not want anything to do with it,of course the place is staffed with toadies,boot lickers and cowards so it's not shocking that they passed the buck to the FBI who have proven to be even more craven then the SEC...



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


Quite the reverse. The article doesn't do that. It makes a series of assertions that it pretends add up to "why Al Qaeda didn't do it" but which in fact don't. I mean seriously, if you're the kind of person who reads an opinion piece that says that "one of the banks that organised put options [of which there were many] once employed someone who now works for the CIA, and therefore Al Qaeda weren't involved" then you're an idiot.

Also notice how the article is published in a conspiracy journal that has a design and title intended to make it look serious. How it uses footnotes that don't back up what it says, and a style designed to sucker the credulous into believeing it to be genuinely academic. You guys will fall for anything won't you?

And you should probably learn the difference between you're and your if your (sic) going to throw around insults about people's intelligence.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
What ever happened to blaming the Jews/Israel/The MOSSAD????? I thought they were the reason everything goes wrong.
I was walking home today and saw a crack in the sidewalk......... No doubt Jews/Israel/The MOSSAD are behind it.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join