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: 3207
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 # 92.
#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.
#93. To: Starwind, robin (#92)
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 $$ from the put options.
I disagree, if his name had been "Marvin Bush", he still would be considered very "lucky". The timing is what is suspect. WTC was built with taxpayer $$. 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]
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)
Replies to Comment # 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.
#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.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 92.