See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Loose Change 2nd Edition on Google Video
Source:
Google Video
URL Source: http://video.google.com/videoplay?d ... 581991288263801&q=loose+change
Published: Jan 27, 2006
Author: Dylan Avery/Louder Than Words production
Post Date: 2006-01-27 13:22:46 by valis
Keywords: Edition, Change, Google
Views: 3191
Comments: 156
An ARG reader has noticed that Google Video is now hosting a streaming version of For those who have seen it, this link serves as a handy reference. For those who have not, after viewing, you’ll probably want to pick up a copy or two.
Loose Change 2nd edition (hopefully with Dylan Avery’s permission)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 123.
#21. To: Ziporah (#0)
The only downloadable video I find are: http://www.loosechange911.com/trailer.wmv (which doesn't mention put options) http://video.google.com/videogvp/LooseChange2ndEditio.gvp?docid=- 5137581991288263801 (which doesn't actually download anything - just a 1kb file) What did you have in mind?
Not the trailer..The video itself. The video mentions put options.. I think it's within the first 1/2 hour ..
Yes, I'm watching it now, about 16 minutes into it.
Please take notes on whatever is said about "put options", when, what stock...
On 9/6/2001 United Airlines - 4 times the normal amount - 3,150 On 9/7/2001 Boeing - 5 times the normal amount - 27,294 On 9/10/2001 American Airlines - 11 times the normal amount - 4,516 Also stuff on Larry Silverstein, 6 weeks before 9/11/2001.
September 6-10, 2001: Suspicious Trading of Put Option Contracts on American and United Airlines Occur A. B."Buzzy" Krongard. Suspicious trading occurs on the stock of American and United, the two airlines hijacked in the 9/11 attacks. “Between 6 and 7 September, the Chicago Board Options Exchange [sees] purchases of 4,744 put option contracts [a speculation that the stock will go down] in UAL versus 396 call options—where a speculator bets on a price rising. Holders of the put options would [net] a profit of $5 million once the carrier's share price [dive] after September 11. On September 10, 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings, [are] purchased in Chicago. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day. Investigators cannot help but notice that no other airlines [see] such trading in their put options.” One analyst later says, “I saw put-call numbers higher than I've ever seen in ten years of following the markets, particularly the options markets.” [Associated Press, 9/18/01; San Francisco Chronicle, 9/19/01] “To the embarrassment of investigators, it has also [learned] that the firm used to buy many of the ‘put’ options ... on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by ‘Buzzy’ Krongard, now executive director of the CIA.” Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown Inc., which was bought by Deutsche Bank. “His last post before resigning to take his senior role in the CIA was to head Bankers Trust—Alex Brown's private client business, dealing with the accounts and investments of wealthy customers around the world.” [Independent, 10/14/01]
Yeah, Buzzy had his fingers in the pie somewhere along the line. What does this say? It says if the CIA had anything whatsoever to do with 9-11, you can bet Bush the Elder knew exactly what was coming. And the financing of global terror is definitely in the repertoire of the Bush Crime Family. This would also include the Saudis and Zionists, though the Zionists are still considered to be competitors of a sort. The money power is the main link.
This is from Sep 19, 2001: The Chicago Board Options Exchange said yesterday that it is looking into an unusual spike in trading in two airline stocks in advance of last week's terrorist attacks. As reported in The Chronicle, options trading in the stocks of the parent companies of American and United airlines was unusually heavy in the three trading days prior to the attack. That activity is the focus of an international investigation in the United States and several other countries that is trying to determine whether people with advance knowledge of the attacks sought to profit from the trading. Four American and United planes, along with their crew and passengers, were hijacked on Sept. 11. Three were used in the terrorist attacks against the twin towers of the World Trade Center and against the Pentagon. The fourth crashed in rural Pennsylvania. Both airlines' stocks fell precipitously when trading resumed on Monday, with shares of UAL, the parent of United, dropping 43 percent, and shares of AMR, the parent of American, dropping 39 percent. Both recovered slightly yesterday, with UAL rising $1.49 to close at $18.99, and AMR rising $2, to close at $20. The Chicago Exchange, the largest options market in the nation and the board on which United options are officially listed, experienced volume eight times its normal levels in the trading of UAL Corp. put options on the Friday before the attack. The purchaser of a put contract is guaranteed the right to sell a specific amount of shares at a specified price by a certain date. The purchaser profits from the deal when the share price drops lower than the agreed sale price. Lynn Howard, the exchange's chief spokeswoman, said, "As is usual, CBOE is conducting an investigation of trading prior to the news event." Howard declined to elaborate on the specific nature of the inquiry. Sources who have agreed to speak on condition of anonymity say government investigators are also looking at the trades. Exchange officials and market markers in San Francisco refused to discuss the inquiry. On the day before the terrorist attack there was a spike of 25 times the normal levels in the trading ratio of UAL put options, with larger-than- average volume coming through the Pacific Exchange. Dale Carlson, a vice president of the Pacific Exchange, refused to comment on whether an inquiry is taking place there in the trading of put options on UAL or any other security. A floor broker with TFM Investment Group, the market maker in UAL options at the Pacific Exchange, also refused to comment.
Zipporah, here from Dakmar's article is a brief and correct explanation of put options: Statement Concerning SEC Terrorist Attack Trading Investigation Washington, D.C., July 22, 2004 52; The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9-11 Commission) has submitted its final report, which includes its review and conclusions concerning whether any trading in the United States securities markets was based on advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission cooperated fully with the 9-11 Commission and provided information based on the following actions. On Sept. 12, 2001, the Securities and Exchange Commission began an investigation to determine whether there was evidence that anyone who had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on September 11 sought to profit from that knowledge by trading in United States securities markets. In the course of that review, we did not develop any evidence suggesting that anyone who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks traded on the basis of that information. In the course of our investigation, we examined more than 9.5 million securities transactions that took place during the weeks preceding September 11. Along with the New York Stock Exchange, NASD, the American Stock Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the Pacific Exchange, and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, we reviewed trading in securities and derivative products of 103 companies in six industry groups with trading in seven markets. We also reviewed trading in 32 exchange traded funds and broad and narrow indices. In addition to working with the exchanges and NASD, we worked with criminal law enforcement authorities, including the Department of Justice and the FBI, as well as our regulatory counterparts in the U.S. and abroad. Finally, we sought and obtained information from the legal and compliance departments at securities firms and other financial institutions to determine whether any unusual trading activity had been observed by their staffs in the period prior to Sept. 11, 2001. http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2004-98.htm The SEC announced yesterday that following an extensive investigation it began the day after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., it had found no evidence suggesting that anyone who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks traded on the basis of that information. The SEC stated that in the course of its investigation, it examined more than 9.5 million securities transactions that took place during the weeks preceding September 11; reviewed trading in securities and derivative products of 103 companies in six industry groups with trading in seven markets; and reviewed trading in 32 exchange traded funds and broad and narrow indices. As discussed in this Chicago Tribune article, reports emerged shortly after the terrorist attacks that in the days leading up to Sept. 11, "some traders placed unusually large bets for stock prices to fall at several firms, particularly for the parent companies of United and American Airlines, whose planes were hijacked and used in the attacks. That prompted speculation that some people who knew about the attacks also had sought to make a quick buck." The article notes that immediately following Sept. 11, shares of UAL dropped 43 percent and shares of AMR fell 39 percent, and that potential profits from the UAL options trading alone were more than $4 million. According to the SEC's investigation, which was incorporated in the just- released report of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, each trade had "an innocuous explanation." The commission report stated that a U.S. institutional investor "with no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda" bought 95 percent of UAL put options on Sept. 6 as part of a trading strategy that also saw it buy shares of AMR, and a sharp climb in AMR put options volume on Sept. 10 resulted from a recommendation in an options-trading newsletter.
But they give no details, just blanket statements. Those are the juvenile and bully tactics being used. No explanation, just patent unsubstantiated statements despite all the facts refuting that statement.
Agreed, there are insufficient verifiable details for one to reach their own conclusion independantly. But the explanation is plausible, at least to me. I'm not sure to what "facts refuting that statement" you refer. There are many unsubstantiated suspicions by many in the trading business, yes. But their suspicions are no more substantiated fact than are TBR News Staff's allusions to "in-house memos now circulating" which is likewise unsubstantiated and unverifiable, but again plausible, at least to me. I wish it were different. I'd like to see images of timestamped, signed photocopy's with letterheads, watermarks etc. But sadly neither source provides sufficient verifiable details to reach conclusions on our own (or at least on my own). Not the SEC/FBI, nor TBR. If we're to avoid being mislead, in any direction by anyone, we ought to at least be consistent in where we set the bar for substantiation.
This NationalReview article is only looking for ties to al-Qaida and proves there are none, end of story. CIA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR "BUZZY" KRONGARD MANAGED FIRM THAT HANDLED "PUT" OPTIONS ON UAL Lucky Larry WTC destroyed, a multi-billion insurance compensation consoles Larry Silverstein
The NRO article seems a rehash (plus enough speculation & anecdote to fill out an article for publication) of what the SEC concluded. I don't see why you cited it. The 'supressed details of criminal insider trading' adds no facts to what either the SEC concluded or to what NRO commented, but it does confuse the aggregate statistics of options and stocks together, not bothering itself with the realities of what positions any given trader took and how they profited or lost. The SEC concluded that the bulk of the UAL put options (a short position) and 115,000 shares of AMR (a long position) were traded by one institution. What Rupert ignores (or doesn't know) is that these short and long positions offset each other and since both UAL & AMR fell in the aftermath of 9/11, the institution's trade doesn't look very smart or 'insiderish' - it looks frankly normal and unprofitable. Also as options have an expiration date (which was not disclosed) it is not obvious from which date profits/losses should be calculated. So, for news articles to speculate that as of Sept 29th "profits had gone uncollected" (as if they were an unclaimed lottery ticket) is plainly uninformed. Lastly, the piece about Silverman is clearly grinding the anti-jewish/zionist axe more than anything else and presumes much not in evidence about the liability and payout provisions of the lease and insurance agreements, which IIRC the insurance companies have yet to payoff - a risk Silverman takes. Silverman's deal was valued at $3.2B pre-9/11. Silverman may get about $1.1B in insurance payouts. After the $616M he owes the Port Authority up front he keeps maybe $500M. Given his rental property is destroyed it is looking like he gets maybe $500M from insurers to split with his partners but loses $2.7B in future rental profits he will never see from his 99-year lease on now destroyed property. And we don't know what money he might owe the Port Authority ongoing under the lease, but I would guess the lease probably has 'Force Majeure' provisions which let him off the hook. Regardless, not very smart money management one expects from an 'insider'. I daresay if the NY Port Authority had leased the WTC to anyone but a Jew we wouldn't be hearing about it.
I disagree, if his name had been "Marvin Bush", he still would be considered very "lucky". The timing is what is suspect. WTC was built with taxpayer $$. We are the losers. His 99 year lease and the amazing purchase of "terrorist insurance" less than 2 months before 9/11 is remarkable. And how did he manage to obtain this 99 year lease? That deserves more investigation. Also, "Painful Deceptions" goes further and discusses how as the owner of building 7, he told the fire dept to "pull it" or demolish it. Every controlled demolition takes weeks to prepare, yet they managed it in a few hours. **************************************** Many theorists turn to the activities of the stock market and finance to highlight claims of foreknowledge. * Larry Silverstein, backed by a number of investors, signed a 99-year lease for the World Trade Center complex seven weeks before the World Trade Center was destroyed in 2001. Silverstein already owned 7 World Trade Center which was also destroyed in the attack. Silverstein was awarded an insurance payment of more than three and a half billion dollars in settlement. In addition, the Silverstein group sued the insurers liable for the World Trade Center for another three and a half billion dollars. They claimed that according to their contract the two planes constituted two separate terrorist attacks. Most of the insurers prevailed in a trial (Silverstein was never granted an additional $2.3 billion in extra insurance money as a result) while others are still in litigation. * Following the attack, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt said the SEC was examining all unusual trading activity of stocks most severely affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. [5] o The most notable reference to the stock market is the report of a high volume of put options being purchased in the days before 9/11 on both American and United Airlines. The number of put options purchased was more than six times higher than normal. CNN reported in September of 2001 that the industry had been on unstable ground throughout the year, and there were a number of put option spikes well before the attacks.[6]. o CNN reported that "Between August 10 and September 10, the NYSE says short sales of UAL Corp. increased 40 percent, American parent AMR Corp increased 20 percent, and aircraft manufacturer Boeing Corp. increased 37 percent. [7] o Put options were also purchased for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, which occupied 22 stories in the World Trade Center. o Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw a 1200% increase in put options bought in the four days preceding 9/11. o Munich Re, the world's biggest reinsurance company, was also examined. A reported $2.5 million in profits made trading options went unclaimed after 9/11. Insider trading is said to have also occurred in several other countries immediately before the attacks of Sept. 11. o Investigators from the U.S. Secret Service contacted a number of bond traders regarding large purchases of five-year Treasury notes before the attacks. Five-year Treasury notes are considered one of the best investments in the event of a world crisis. [8] o Germany's central bank governor Ernst Welteke says there were signs of suspicious movements in oil and gold prices before the attack. [9] o To date, no concrete evidence has yet been provided for anything sinister in these transactions; US intelligence agencies are known to monitor markets for signs of imminent untoward events. * On September 10 Amr "Anthony" Elgindy, an Egyptian-born financial analyst tried to liquidate his children's $300,000 trust account. Although this report doesn't indicate US involvement, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ken Breen has stated that this could have indicated foreknowledge of the attacks. [10]
But if you're going to allege Silverstein planned the destruction of the WTC, you've got to explain how he pulled it off 3 months after winning the right to buy it (and why would be helpful as well). If you're going to allege he planned the destruction of only buildings 6 & 7, you've got to explain how he set that up within hours of the towers going. Occam's razor - he didn't know. He's your garden variety Jewish NY real estate mogul, not bent on killing and conspiring against the American people. I'd like to be such a loser. The Port Authority wished to sell the WTC (it being a target for attacks, such as those in 1993, made it an insurance liability). But the WTC was built in 1973 for about $750M of the taxpayers money ( World Trade Center). So when it was sold to Silverstein in 2001 for $3.2B including a lease on the land for $116M/year, the taxpayers netted a profit of about $2.5B up front, so they weren't losers, were they. No, they did quite well off Mr. Silverstein ('course I'm sure NYC didn't actually rebate a dime to any taxpayer - but they did unload the insurance liability). 99 years is a very standard lease term for real estate. Further, Silverstein was outbid by a larger group, Vornado Realty Trust of Paramus, N.J, but when talks with Vornado fell thru, Silversteins group came to the fore ( Silverstein Properties and Westfield win $3.2B World Trade Center lease). So he 'managed' to get the 99-year lease by paying more than the next guy and giving up more than the next guy. Silverstein bought the WTC buildings but he did not buy the land under them. The land is what the 99-year lease is for, and while I don't know the details, apparently Silverstein is still required to pay on the land lease. So he was squeezed between not having any buildings to rent out and owing on the land lease. Lastly, I don't know what you consider to be an "amazing purchase of terrorist insurance" but consider that the WTC had already been the repeated target of terrorist attacks. I can't imagine anyone in Silverstein's consortium (or anyone's for that matter) putting up money without insurance, including terrorism coverage, and it very likely was a condition of sale set by the Port Authority. The rest of the Wikipedia article are more variations on the "suspicious trades" already discussed. Additional references don't make them anymore suspicious or substantiated. Factual proof of a particular trade, OTOH, would be most welcomed.
Not true, there were others mentioned in wikipedia besides the airline put options. o Put options were also purchased for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, which occupied 22 stories in the World Trade Center. o Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw a 1200% increase in put options bought in the four days preceding 9/11. o Munich Re, the world's biggest reinsurance company, was also examined. A reported $2.5 million in profits made trading options went unclaimed after 9/11. Insider trading is said to have also occurred in several other countries immediately before the attacks of Sept. 11. o Investigators from the U.S. Secret Service contacted a number of bond traders regarding large purchases of five-year Treasury notes before the attacks. Five-year Treasury notes are considered one of the best investments in the event of a world crisis. [8] o Germany's central bank governor Ernst Welteke says there were signs of suspicious movements in oil and gold prices before the attack. [9] ******** The timing was set by the Port Authority as the bidding process went on their schedule. Several groups bid. Silverstein's bid was 2nd or 3rd and not being considered. The strongest group (Brookfield) had the lowest bid but to avoid appearance of favoritism, negotiations began with the top $$ bidder (Vornado) who later broke off negotiations and only then did Silverstein's bid get acted on. To the extent the top bidders fell out, yes, then Silverstein was lucky. Oh and how did that happen? You are not naive enough to think these types of biddings are run fairly are you? And in NYC? Give me a break. You are looking at this backwards. IF 9/11 was a pre-planned Pearl Harbor type attack, then the person who won the bid is significant. He also just happened to already own building 7, which as I pointed out to you he told the fire dept to "Pull it" which means to demolish it. (And you never replied to the fact that it takes weeks to prepare, but the building came down in hours and then the official explanation was that it fell from the fires (which is baloney, they were small). The penthouse fell first and it was stories from the small fires in building 7. It was no doubt a demolition.) You should watch both videos. "Loose Change" also brings up all the gold bars that were stored at WTC. Any building that was not owned by Silverstein Properties strangely remained upright. Plus Silverstein got a break on taxes, and he ended up with plenty of money. The World Trade Center is a gold mine. And Larry Silverstein knows it. Silverstein already owned number Seven WTC, but he led a consortium that just months ago signed a new $3.2 billion US, 99-year lease on the WTC complex. That was the first time the WTC had changed hands in it's thirty year history. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed the deal with the Silverstein-led Westfield America on the 26th April, 2001. Westfield America leased the concourse mall, and Silverstein the office portion. The deal was finalized and celebrated on the 23rd July -just seven weeks before almost the entire complex was destroyed. Port Authority officers gave a giant set of keys to the complex to Silverstein and to Westfield CEO Lowy. Silverstein was ecstatic at that time. "This is a dream come true," he had said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights." An ironic choice of words, in retrospect. The leased buildings included Numbers One and Two (the Twin Towers), Four, Five and 400,000 square feet of retail space. The Marriott Hotel (3WTC), U.S. Customs building (6WTC) and Silverstein's own 47-story office building were already under lease. Despite the transfer to private hands, the tax payments would still come from the Port Authority -who had been making yearly $25 million payments in lieu of taxes to New York City. The proper figure should be more like $100 million according to city administrators. Silversteen is undeterred by the demolition of the complex. He already has somewhat insensitive plans to rebuild. Four towers this time. Although the complex was not insured against an act of war, new policies insured against terrorist damage. Which leaves everybody financially consoled, even if not emotionally so. The vendors still have the $3.2 billion they made on the sale. The purchasers lease deal had spanking new insurance --with new beneficiaries-- for capital value and loss of income. Silverstein has insurance money to rebuild and get the $110 million of annual rental income flowing again. Or double that with his planned four towers. Nice money if you can get it. Can he? Not if the insurers could help it. They are the big losers. And they detest having to pay a claim on a policy taken out only weeks before. Indeed, they often delay payment to investigate cases where immediate claims are made against brand new policies.
Alright then, put options for what exactly, when did they expire, and for whom MSDW or clients of MSDW? And was MSDW acting a counterparty, offsetting/hedging against the put options purchased by others, or were they trading for their own account? Ditto for Merrill Lynch. Again options on what? when did they expire? for whom were they bought? When options expire without being exercised the profit is lost. Options that aren't "claimed" didn't get exercised, so how are "profits" on expired and unclaimed options determined, pray tell? How large? Several billion dollars worth are traded daily. The US markets and economy was already plunging rapidly into fall of 2001. What large purchases stood out in that climate? LOL - when isn't the price of gold and oil being manipulated? There is not enough fact to prove or disprove these suspicions (anybody can suspect anything, and apparently they do) independently of having to accept someone elses finding. If I saw a conspiracy theory that actually addressed the reality of how options, stocks bonds, etc are traded normally and then showed what was specifically different pre-9/11 and how the SEC was wrong, specifically, that woul dbe important. But repetition of old suspicions in absence of any thoughtful analysis isn't credible. Alright then lets start with your analysis of how the bidding should have gone, how Silverstein, the NY Port Authority, Brookfield, Vornado, etc all conspired to control the timing, the outcome, the price, setup the planes/missiles, whatever, and coordinated it all with the Pentagon and the airlines, the Likud, Mossad, etc, etc etc.
I'll ask a third time about building 7, Larry Silverstein said to "Pull it", this means to demolish the building. Why did he say that? Why were the only buildings left standing buildings not owned or leased by Larry Silverstein? There are many unanswered questions about put options, and they are suspicious. The govt refuses to investigate more, why? IF some group within our govt did 9/11, do you really think they could not contrive NYC bidding at least as easily as Tony Soprano? Let me ask you this, do you think Bush could have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, crammed the Patriot Act down our throats, started the DHS, and illegally wiretapped on Americans, w/o 9/11?
Obviously he screwed up and missed a couple. Perhaps they recognized the futility of it? Is there any proof that would, in your mind, exhonerate Larry Silverstein or the unamed institutional trader? I honestly don't believe they are anywhere near smart enough. I don't believe they would start out with 9/11 as "the plan". I'm willing to believe they botched the detection, prevention, and reaction so badly (ala Katrina) that a lot of really bad decisions were made and covered up. I'm sure there are liars on all sides of these issues, for various self-serving motives. Just because someone is attempting to disprove the government's theory, does not mean they are truthful about their own testimony. All the evidence, testimony, theories, whatever need to be scrutinized. Just like lies will found on all sides, so will a grain of truth be found here and there. And even some aspects of the government's version can be truthful while other aspects are not. But if you discard all of it out of hand simply because it is touted by the government, if you swallow everything simply because it disputes the government, you'll never find the truth. Life is rather more complicated than what Tony Soprano experiences. Yes I do. Never misunderestimate stupidity - his or ours (collectively).
One question.. have you ever read the Northwoods document?
No.
This is what made me rethink 9/11: This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”
#124. To: Zipporah, Starwind (#123)
That's not possible Zip, the govt is too incompetent, Katrina proves it, according to Starwind. So then is al-Qaida and OBL more competent than our govt? Is that what he means? FEMA turning away flotillas of aid, trucks with water, that's criminal, not incompetence. The govt awarding Halliburton the cleanup contract 3 days after Katrina struck, while Americans were still about to die in New Orleans, that's criminal, not incompetence. Forcing the victims out of the state, destroying their homes out from under them, that's criminal, not incompetence. New Orleans is a MAJOR shipping port for oil, natural gas, etc. Here's the attitude that may have played a part in what is even now happening to the people of New Orleans. The President's mother on national television after Katrina:
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#24. To: Starwind (#21)
#25. To: Zipporah, Starwind (#24)
#27. To: robin (#25)
Yes, I'm watching it now, about 16 minutes into it.
#37. To: Starwind (#27)
Please take notes on whatever is said about "put options", when, what stock...
#38. To: robin, starwind (#37)
People and organizations involved: Deutsche Bank, American Airlines, Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, Chicago Board Options Exchange, United Airlines 
#53. To: Dakmar (#38)
A. B."Buzzy" Krongard.
#55. To: BTP Holdings (#53)
New scrutiny of airlines options deals
#79. To: Dakmar, Zipporah, Robin (#55)
The purchaser of a put contract is guaranteed the right to sell a specific amount of shares at a specified price by a certain date. The purchaser profits from the deal when the share price drops lower than the agreed sale price.
And here is some background I looked up on the state of the SEC's investigation: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 2004-98
http://slw.issproxy.com/securities_litigation_blo/2004/07/ July 23, 2004 SEC Finds No Suspicious Trading in Advance of Sept. 11 Attacks
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.pdf 130. 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 trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example the volume of put options - investments that payoff 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 US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95% of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also include 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 US-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 security 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. [...snip...]
It is conceivable the SEC/FBI conclusions regarding the unusual pre-9/11 trading in AMR & UAL are truthful, and yet much else in 911 commission report can still be false.
#88. To: Starwind (#79)
Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example the volume of put options - investments that payoff 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.
#90. To: robin (#88)
But they give no details, just blanket statements. Those are the juvenile and bully tactics being used.
No explanation, just patent unsubstantiated statements despite all the facts refuting that statement.
#91. To: Starwind (#90)
Was There Another 9/11 Attack on Wall Street?
#92. To: robin (#91)
#97. To: Starwind (#92)
Lastly, the piece about Silverman is clearly grinding the anti-jewish/zionist axe more than anything else and presumes much not in evidence about the liability and payout provisions of the lease and insurance agreements, which IIRC the insurance companies have yet to payoff - a risk Silverman takes.
#98. To: robin (#97)
I disagree, if his name had been "Marvin Bush", he still would be considered very "lucky". The timing is what is suspect.
The timing was set by the Port Authority as the bidding process went on their schedule. Several groups bid. Silverstein's bid was 2nd or 3rd and not being considered. The strongest group (Brookfield) had the lowest bid but to avoid appearance of favoritism, negotiations began with the top $$ bidder (Vornado) who later broke off negotiations and only then did Silverstein's bid get acted on. To the extent the top bidders fell out, yes, then Silverstein was lucky. WTC was built with taxpayer $$. We are the losers.
His 99 year lease and the amazing purchase of "terrorist insurance" less than 2 months before 9/11 is remarkable. And how did he manage to obtain this 99 year lease? That deserves more investigation.
#103. To: Starwind (#98)
The rest of the Wikipedia article are more variations on the "suspicious trades" already discussed.
#109. To: robin (#103)
Not true, there were others mentioned in wikipedia besides the airline put options.
Put options were also purchased for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter,
Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw a 1200% increase in put options bought in the four days preceding 9/11.
Munich Re, the world's biggest reinsurance company, was also examined. A reported $2.5 million in profits made trading options went unclaimed after 9/11.
Investigators from the U.S. Secret Service contacted a number of bond traders regarding large purchases of five-year Treasury notes before the attacks. Five- year Treasury notes are considered one of the best investments in the event of a world crisis.
Germany's central bank governor Ernst Welteke says there were signs of suspicious movements in oil and gold prices before the attack. [9]
You are not naive enough to think these types of biddings are run fairly are you?
#114. To: Starwind (#109)
#117. To: robin (#114)
I'll ask a third time about building 7, Larry Silverstein said to "Pull it", this means to demolish the building. Why did he say that?
You perhaps overlooked my answer earlier, I don't know. But as I also said earlier, I don't accept his out of context quote and someone elses imputation of what he must have meant as self-evident fact sufficient to declare him a culprit in a conspiracy. I don't know the detailed circumstances of anyones 'story' on the WTC but I do know plausible from implausible regarding some of the business-related suspicions cited. Why were the only buildings left standing buildings not owned or leased by Larry Silverstein?
The govt refuses to investigate more, why?
IF some group within our govt did 9/11, do you really think they could not contrive NYC bidding at least as easily as Tony Soprano?
Let me ask you this, do you think Bush could have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, crammed the Patriot Act down our throats, started the DHS, and illegally wiretapped on Americans, w/o 9/11?
#118. To: Starwind (#117)
I honestly don't believe they are anywhere near smart enough. I don't believe they would start out with 9/11 as "the plan".
#120. To: Zipporah (#118)
have you ever read the Northwoods document?
#123. To: Starwind (#120)
In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS.
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba [includes cover memoranda], March 13, 1962, TOP SECRET, 15 pp.
Replies to Comment # 123.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 123.