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.
In sum, the investigation found absolutely no evidence that any trading occurred with foreknowledge of 9/11. The transparency of the U.S. securities markets almost ensures that any such trading would be detectable by investigators. Even if the use of some combination of offshore accounts, shell companies, and false identification obscured the identity of the traders themselves, the unexplained trade would stand out like a giant red flag. The absence of any such flags corroborates the conclusion that there is no evidence any such trading occurred. Indeed, the leaders of both the SEC and FBI investigations into pre-9/11 trading expressed great confidence in this conclusion.
Another good example concerns a suspicious UAL put trade on September 7, 2001. A single trader bought more than one-third of the total puts purchased that day, establishing a position that proved very profitable after 9/11. Moreover, it turns out that the same trader had a short position in UAL calls—another strategy that would pay off if the price of UAL dropped. Investigation, however, identified the purchaser as a well-established New York hedge fund with $2 billion under management. Setting aside the unlikelihood of al Qaeda having a relationship with a major New York hedge fund, these trades looked facially suspicious. But further examination showed the fund also owned 29,000 shares of UAL stock at the time—all part of a complex, computer-driven trading strategy. As a result of these transactions, the fund actually lost $85,000 in value when the market reopened. Had the hedge fund wanted to profit from the attacks, it would not have retained the UAL shares.
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options--investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price--surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10--highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American 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. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
AT the very least, someone who bought and investment as such... would have to have a trail leading to him one way or another.. through receipts, bank accounts or something...
They find the person who bought them, if they really wanted to..
Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
Only they claim it's not important because these people are not connected to Al Qeada, therefore they are innocent! What a stupid logic that is! Talk about spin doctors!
Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
Only they claim it's not important because these people are not connected to Al Qeada, therefore they are innocent! What a stupid logic that is! Talk about spin doctors!
Just out of interest, how many years have you spent doing investigations for the FBI and what was your involvement in investigating the put options on 9/11?
From the 9/11 Commision Report:
Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.
So no connection to 9/11 as well as no connection to al Queda. That was the conclusion reached by professional investigators with the FBI. Now if your experience in this issue exceeds theirs, please, enlighten me.
[edit on 29/11/2006 by doctorfungi]
Originally posted by doctorfungi
Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
Only they claim it's not important because these people are not connected to Al Qeada, therefore they are innocent! What a stupid logic that is! Talk about spin doctors!
Just out of interest, how many years have you spent doing investigations for the FBI and what was your involvement in investigating the put options on 9/11?
From the 9/11 Commision Report:
Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.
So no connection to 9/11 as well as no connection to al Queda. That was the conclusion reached by professional investigators with the FBI. Now if your experience in this issue exceeds theirs, please, enlighten me.
Originally posted by TruthSeekerMP
And to reply to Dr. Fungi and 911myths.com's claims regarding stock options put on stocks if analysts say that "Q3, Q4" will be declining, this is completely false. If you know anything about the stock market, the chances of a stock "expert" being on with their predictions is like a monkey throwing a dart at a dartboard to show if the stock is rising or falling. And to be honest, ANYONE is business knows and understands this too.
Originally posted by jinsanity
Fungi I would becareful of your sourcing of 9/11myths.com. It's just like snopes. Not everything is as they say it is. Alot of the 9/11 myths are actually facts.
Just one example was ashcroft. He actually did stop flying jet airliners and was flying the smaller airlines because of in his words a hijacking threat. this was shortly before 9/11