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: 3223
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
Comments (1-61) not displayed.
.
.
.
#62. To: Zipporah (#59)
Off sub, what was that http://XXXbuddada.com site you posted a week or so ago? Had a guy doing the ukalale that I need to watch again. If you please.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
OMG it's a hot link, I am not going there - it was something like sublime Buddada (memo to self, think before using "xxx" as a cipher on the web)was to link a video, IIRC.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
I dont recall! .. It was a video?
Yes - maybe Christine, you internet divias get confused in my neolithic mind.
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially-induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." -- General Douglas MacArthur
I`ll buy it. The work is great and should be rewarded. Mark
The drills that had been run for weeks prior, helped to confuse the controllers involved. Everyone knew that the planes were "hijacked" but no fighters were scrambled for over 40min, and then when they were, they were flown out of a far air force base, and were not even flying supersonic to get there. Mark
I forget what year it was, either 2000 or 2001, the Pentagon had a mock, computer, model, paper terrorist drill that had a airliner crashing into the Pentagon. There is somewhere on the internet the picture and info with a plane inside the ring, smashed up, with military officials standing around. Mark
Hmm I dont recall if that photo was in the video or not..
As the explosions continued, the top started to go, and the core was completely taken out, and the towers fell back into, pretty much there own footprint. Every floor didn't need to be rigged, if you watch closely, about every 5-10 floors are being blown as it was a top down demo. A couple months prior, CDI practiced on two giant abandoned watertowers in NY. No reason was ever given for the destruction of these watertowers. Mark
WTC 7 was a classic bottom up demo. It had the crimp and everything. Pools of molten iron and steel were found at all three sites, which is a dead give away of explosives. Mark
The google video site is a little confusing. If you download the google video player and click the link to download the video, it will download all of it to a folder that the video player sets up on your computer. The player itself and it's install program seem harmless enough. In XP, mine was defaulted at my documentsmy videosgoogle videos. It also saves the video in google's video format (.gvi), so if you are having trouble finding the folder you can search your hard drive for all files under that extension. However I don't know if that format can easily be converted to avi or mpeg for burning to a video cd or dvd.
Nothing says "poor workmanship" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
As to WTC 1 & 2 that's the way I see it, too (top down). WTC 7 was without doubt controlled (went from bottom up).
In 1947, the UN created a perpetual war and named it Israel.
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/Contingency_Planning_Photos.html Mark
Good lord.. thanks for the link... rather revealing to say the least..
ah! i had forgotten that. thanks, mark.
here's the redo with a different narrator of Painful Deceptions, tom. i've not seen this yet myself.
ah ha. there's the difference then between 7 and 1 and 2.
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. (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
tommy, if you have time, can you watch Painful Deceptions linked above? i'd like to get your opinion on which you think is better between it and 'Loose Change'.
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. Hmm considering the number of trades and specifically involving the airlines that were used in the attack and that the trades took place very close to 9/11, does this seem plausible?
I went back and reread this and a couple of things.. "it had found no evidence suggesting that anyone who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks traded on the basis of that information" and also from the Commission Report: " 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. " Now this #1 makes the assumption that al Qaeda committed the acts.. so what the Commission Report is saying then, if the investors who purchased the put options in question had no ties with al Qaeda then they were eliminated from scrutiny?
Assuming the SEC/FBI reporting is truthful, yes it is plausible. Daily, if not hourly, traders seek to exploit some perceived advantage in information and to profit on what they think they know. We often don't know these trades were made, much less learn if they made or lost money. 9/11 was unique in that it provided the context in which some trades related to airlines (and perhaps Wall Street real estate?) could be suspicious. By contrast, insider trading pre-9/11 in soybean futures would not be suspect because of no perceived connection. But if a freighter mysteriously sunk at sea ostensibly carrying soybeans to China (but alleged to also carry suitcase nukes for delivery to al Qaeda) then suspicions might be aroused to investigate shipping company trades and perhaps soybean trades. In the specific case of AMR and UAL, the investigation alleges (plausibly) a single institution was responsible for most of the trades, betting on a fall in UAL stock price and a rise in AMR stock price. These trades were likely executed through several trading firms (who inturn might front-run additional trades - illegally) to mask the identity of the trader and the tactic being used - that is normal when big trades are being made. It would seem in this case the trade likely busted. The trader bet that UAL would fall (it fell, so likely a gain) but that AMR would rise (it fell too, so likely a loss) - how it all net out wasn't reported. I could easily imagine someone like Carl Icahn attempting this.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
The trader bet that UAL would fall (it fell, so likely a gain) but that AMR would rise (it fell too, so likely a loss) - how it all net out wasn't reported. I could easily imagine someone like Carl Icahn attempting this. Okay thanks for taking the time to explain this.. clarifies some things for me. And I wont ask who Carl Ichahn is, I'll do a search.. :P
Do you know/recall if there is an install-time option to put video in a user- specified folder, and if you move a google video to some other folder (other than the default) will the google player re-play it, or will it only replay from its default folder? Naturally to download the video, communication with google's website is expected. But after a video has been downloaded, if you replay a video (say, a second time a day or so later) does the google video player require to again communicate with the google website, for example, perhaps to verify that your saved copy is legitimate and you have a 'right' to replay it? Do you have a firewall that notifies you of unexpected or unauthorized attempts to "call home to the mother ship"? Do you know, if someone emails you a copy of a google video, will your google video player play it, or might it complain that you're not the rightful owner or that you didn't download that copy yourself? Yes, I'm being lazy :) By asking you, I'm hoping to save myself trouble and irritation with Google's flavor of "digital rights management" as well as their brain-dead inflexibilty in how their products install & run.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
here's one for your 'you gotta be shittin' me" list. Rudy Guilliani 'we were told the world trade center was going to collapse in 10 or 15 minutes'.. now if this was such a shock.. unexpected.. how did they know #1 it was going to collapse and #2 when? http://media.putfile.com/Ruldolph-you-got-some-splanin-to-do
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
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.
"We don't need no stinkin' badges!" -Gold Hat, now starring Alberto Gonzales Thanks Dakmar. I'd forgotten about BCCI - So much corruption, so little disk space.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
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.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
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
"We don't need no stinkin' badges!" -Gold Hat, now starring Alberto Gonzales 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.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
No I totally disagree.. I dont care if he's jewish or Latvian.. What brought questions about Silverstein are the following:
I mentioned why, it was only looking to prove that terrorists did not make $$ from the put options.
"We don't need no stinkin' badges!" -Gold Hat, now starring Alberto Gonzales Yes, well the "National Journal" has a decidedly different slant: I won't pretend to know the truth about WTC 6 & 7. I did say the SEC/FBI findings on the suspicious insider 'put options' were plausible to me and could be truthful even though the rest of the 9/11 Commission Report could be false. But I don't see were any of this speculation about Silverstein proves or disproves the 'put option' suspicions. My point above in post #90 to robin was about the inability to substantiate independently. I don't see where either the accusers or defenders have made that possible and I choose to take any/all of it with considerable salt. Don't confuse "plausible" with "self-evident" - they are not the same.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
That was the SEC/FBI's point - whoever was the institution making those suspicious trades, they likely didn't profit and they had presumed AMR's stock price would move in the opposite direction (up) of UAL's (down) - terrorist or no.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I disagree, if his name had been "Marvin Bush", he still would be considered very "lucky". The timing is what is suspect. WTC was built with taxpayer $$. 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]
"We don't need no stinkin' badges!" -Gold Hat, now starring Alberto Gonzales 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.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I can't be held responsible for what the National Journal's spin is.. I'm not disputing the put options without some further evidence.. but I did post a couple of links that puts Silverstein under some suspicion IMO..
Certainly not. My criticism of anti-jewish/zionist axes being ground was directed at them, not you or robin. Yes, I understand that is your opinion. I briefly glanced at the video clips of Silverstein's statements. I understand the implications, I'd need to dig deeper into what is being alleged, though I don't think I will take the time at prersent, I have other priorities and the conspiracy theories often are baseless at bottom. Rest assured, I don't believe the governments version. But neither do I believe the conspiracy theories.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
The government's versions ARE conspiracy therories. Any way a impartial observer cuts it, The governments versions are conspiracy theories.
The land is not for sale, never.
Comments (103 - 156) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#63. To: All (#62)
at http://XXXbuddada.com
#64. To: tom007 (#62)
Off sub, what was that http://XXXbuddada.com site you posted a week or so ago? Had a guy doing the ukalale that I need to watch again. If you please.
#65. To: Zipporah, christine (#64)
dont recall! .. It was a video?
#66. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#12)
#67. To: christine (#23)
#68. To: Zipporah (#48)
#69. To: Kamala (#68)
I forget what year it was, either 2000 or 2001, the Pentagon had a mock, computer, model, paper terrorist drill that had a airliner crashing into the Pentagon. There is somewhere on the internet the picture and info with a plane inside the ring, smashed up, with military officials standing around.
#70. To: tom007 (#52)
#71. To: christine (#60)
#72. To: Starwind (#21)
(which doesn't actually download anything - just a 1kb file)
#73. To: tom007 (#52)
Any way you look at it the towers came down from the top. The other controlled demos go down from the bottom.
#74. To: Zipporah (#69)
#75. To: Kamala (#74)
#76. To: Kamala (#67)
#77. To: tom007 (#65)
#78. To: Kamala, tom007 (#70)
Every floor didn't need to be rigged, if you watch closely, about every 5-10 floors are being blown as it was a top down demo.
#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.
#80. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#77)
#81. To: Starwind (#79)
July 23, 2004 SEC Finds No Suspicious Trading in Advance of Sept. 11 Attacks
#82. To: Starwind (#79)
#83. To: Zipporah (#81)
Hmm considering the number of trades and specifically involving the airlines that were used in the attack and that the trades took place very close to 9/11, does this seem plausible?
#84. To: Starwind (#83)
9/11 was unique in that it provided the context in which some trades related to airlines (and perhaps Wall Street real estate?) could be suspicious. By contrast, insider trading pre-9/11 in soybean futures would not be suspect because of no perceived connection. But if a freighter mysteriously sunk at sea ostensibly carrying soybeans to China (but alleged to also carry suitcase nukes for delivery to al Qaeda) then suspicions might be aroused to investigate shipping company trades and perhaps soybean trades.
#85. To: orangedog (#72)
If you download the google video player and click the link to download the video, it will download all of it to a folder that the video player sets up on your computer.
The player itself and it's install program seem harmless enough.
#86. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#56)
#87. To: Starwind (#79)
a bit off topic, but still the same crooks, from a very long article I thought you might find of interest:
#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.
#89. To: Dakmar (#87)
#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)
#93. To: Starwind, robin (#92)
I daresay if the NY Port Authority had leased the WTC to anyone but a Jew we wouldn't be hearing about it.
#94. To: Starwind (#92)
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.
#95. To: Zipporah (#93)
No I totally disagree.. I dont care if he's jewish or Latvian..
Whenever so many wonderful people of the Jewish faith come together and celebrate their deserved fortune, Daniel Liebeskind must never be missed out.
#96. To: robin (#94)
I mentioned why, it was only looking to prove that terrorists did not make $$ from the put options.
#97. To: Starwind (#92)
Lastly, the piece about Silverman is clearly grinding the anti-jewish/zionist axe more than anything else and presumes much not in evidence about the liability and payout provisions of the lease and insurance agreements, which IIRC the insurance companies have yet to payoff - a risk Silverman takes.
#98. To: robin (#97)
I disagree, if his name had been "Marvin Bush", he still would be considered very "lucky". The timing is what is suspect.
The timing was set by the Port Authority as the bidding process went on their schedule. Several groups bid. Silverstein's bid was 2nd or 3rd and not being considered. The strongest group (Brookfield) had the lowest bid but to avoid appearance of favoritism, negotiations began with the top $$ 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.
#99. To: Starwind (#95)
#100. To: Zipporah (#99)
I can't be held responsible for what the National Journal's spin is..
but I did post a couple of links that puts Silverstein under some suspicion IMO..
#101. To: Starwind, robin (#100)
Rest assured, I don't believe the governments version. But neither do I believe the conspiracy theories.
#102. To: Starwind (#98)
lverstein bought the WTC buildings but he did not buy the land under them.
.
.
.