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.
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!
[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.
[color=gold]Think that the SEC Is Corrupt? Meet Gary Aguirre
[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."
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.
Originally posted by belial259
And how are we supposed to take that seriously?
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Just add one more organization to the list of conspirators. What could it hurt?
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?
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.
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"
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
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 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.
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?
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.