A major media source finally questions the insider trading

Hello all.

New to your forum, and I truly hope to avoid being dragged into the flame wars so common with this very emotional topic. I promise to try and remain respectful and objective. Please afford me the same.

First, a bit of background (or just skip to post #2)...

I fall into the LIHOP camp, which means that I get to enjoy being crucified by both the official narrative loyalists as well as the controlled demolition crowd. Authors Michel Chossudovsky, Pepe Escobar, Dale Allen Pfieffer and Mike Ruppert are some of my main influences on this topic.

LIHOP, of course, insists that (condensed version here) certain power circles within the Beltway-Langley-Wall St. axis knew the attacks were coming, monitored them in real time, and let them happen as a pretext for war in order to streamline permissions and acceptances for Middle East invasion and control of world oil trade. I believe the reasons they did this are hinted at throughout the 2001 tax-funded NEPDG report, which (for some unprecedented reason) remained classified for years.

I believe Team Cheney knew of imminent global oil production decline, confirmed by Dick's 1999 speech to the London Institute of Petroleum... and that peak oil (another topic, altogether) was the underlying cause for such unspeakable action... It all was pulled off (and covered up) near flawlessly.

The reason I don't adhere to MIHOP (made it happen) theory is mostly that I don't believe it would stand up in court. What you would have is both sides bringing in "expert" testimony that would create a litigation gridlock of inconclusiveness, and the case would be tossed. With LIHOP, however, any potential prosecution could rely on direct, verifiable evidence, including testimony from numerous sources the 9/11 Commission never acknowledged. It is the far FAR more court admissible case to bring to trial. That's not to say that MIHOPers haven't done brilliant work and shown considerable passion in uncovering the greatest crime in U.S. history. It's just that, if it were up to me and I had just one shot at justice, I'd rather go to battle with the more provable case that couldn't be muddied with conjecture.

Realize, of course, that I have no illusions that the window of opportunity has closed on this mystery, and those who were responsible will never be held accountable (before they die off of natural causes, anyway). But this forum exists, and people obviously want to talk about it. Further, the more 9/11 stays relevant, the more difficult some people will find it to re-write the history books.

With that said, it is my firm opinion that two of the main facets of any real investigation into 9/11 would have been:

• The fairly obvious insider trading before the attacks.
• The quiet retirement of the Mahmud Ahmad from the ISI.

Not that those, in and of themselves, would prove anything. Merely that the comprehensive questioning that thorough investigation (with subpoena power) would have brought MAY have revealed a trail worth following.

Now, Ahmad was never detained, never questioned. He was allowed to fade away as a footnote to history. Meanwhile, India intelligence, corroborated by our own FBI, proved that the $100,000 wire transfer came from Ahmad. It seems hard to insist that a real, thorough investigation into the greatest crime in U.S. history was ever conducted if the main money man was never ever questioned by U.S. authorities, despite being the main main of Pakistan's CIA. Regardless, that trail seems to have dried up with his "retirement."

So then there's the put/calls on United and American Airlines, to the point of 6x the normal volume in the days leading up to the attacks.

(cont.)...

 

Anyone who remembers this story at the time will recall that a few media outlets broke from the gate with initial speculation, and then it died away quickly. Aside from a few brave, albeit fringe investigative journalists, the pre-9/11 insider trading story went away, and the loose ends were tied up very neatly by the SEC's extremely hastey explanation. "Good enough for me," most journalists likely insisted.

And now, over 10 years later, The Asia Times has caught scent and taken up the trail with an extremely powerful piece on the topic:

AN ASIA TIMES ONLINE EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION
Insider trading 9/11 ... the facts laid bare

By Lars Schall
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NC21Dj05.html

It is a massive piece, but a few of my favorite passages:

So much for the SEC's conclusion that it was all quite abnormal, but not nefarious and instead entirely coincidental.

Which makes the far higher estimate of how much "someone" earned on this move all the more compelling than the softer total surmised by the SEC.

Incidentally, Snopes didn't provide that aspect in their "nothing to see here" assessment.

 

"For example 1,535 put option contracts on American Airlines with a strike of $30 and expiry in October 2001 were traded on September 10th, in contrast to a daily average of around 24 contracts over the previous three weeks. The fact that the market was currently in a bear market is not sufficient to explain these surprising volumes."

- Marc Chesney, economics professor at University of Zurich

http://archives.lesechos.fr/archives/2007/LesEchos/20001-166-ECH.htm

 

and my absolute favorite part: ...

The SEC's own words. Absolutely awesome.

So, to review.... Bush's SEC declared that:

• bin Laden couldn't possibly have been involved in the trading
• therefore nothing nefarious took place, as he was their only suspect

It then trashed their records of the matter entirely. The 9/11 Commission said "Good enough for us," and Snopes followed up with the extra-point.

CONCLUSION OF OPINION:

The obstruction of justice is so painfully transparent, a prosecutor would have to have a truly apathetic sense of due diligence in order to let this all go.

Every known innocuous explanation is disparate, some even contradictory, and all are laughable. The only logical conclusion is that this story was made to go away, because if the financial records in question were truly investigated, who knows how many people facing jail time would talk.

"When a flock of birds suddenly changes direction, simultaneously and uniformly, is it a conspiracy? Or is it just an instant recognition by every member of the flock where their collective interests lie?" - M. Ruppert.

 

* I should clarify and say that SOME people have done brilliant MIHOP work. Certainly not all. A lot of it is laughably bad, and likely disinformation. Either way, I overwhelmingly prefer LIHOP.

 

I see nothing but a bunch of opinions. Opinions are not evidence.

Do you have any actual EVIDENCE to back up your claims?

 

Gotta love the tall tales the truthers try to pass off as evidence of governmental collusion.

Apparently Japan, Germany, the U.K., France, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Switzerland and Spain should be accused of LIHOP as well since their investigations turned up nothing.

Or maybe we should chalk up the attacks to the vast conspiracy of stock regulatory officials who track suspicious trading in real time with software that doesn't rely on magic, or speculation in its actual existence?

 

And by the way, Michael Ruppert doesn't appear to understand the difference between spoken languages and programing languages.

 

According the Daily Telegraph Ernst Welteke [Note your source couldn't even get his name right] made the quoted statement on 9/23/01, just 12 days after the attack. It's hardly an informed statement made after careful investigation. And after careful investigation it's clear that Germany did not have any issue with the trading that took place prior to 9/11.

http://www.911myths.com/images/8/84/Team4_Box16_Team4Interviews_PrelimMeetingJosephCellaSEC.pdf

 

24 puts on same stock averaged over 3 weeks...

1,535 in one day...

nothing abnormal there.

Anyhow, you need to conduct an actual investigation first before you can gather direct evidence. Regardless, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence, which has been more than enough to put away murderers for decades.

My only argument is that an independent criminal investigation was entirely warranted, based on the known facts. If you think the SEC's summary was enough, you have a painfully curious concept of justice. They started and ended their assessment with one suspect. That's quite cynical.

 

Why? So you can ignore THAT investigation as well? I notice you only took the prior three weeks for put options. Why is that? Why not go back further and prove it was a real abnormality? Go back a year. A decade. Show it was suspicious. Pretending the three prior weeks of stock market activity is in some way definitive proof of suspicous activity is just laughable. Except nobody is laughing.

 

This is why you should never hire truther lawyers. They don't know anything about the law.

Deputization under the securities exchange act does not include a gag order. Quite the opposite, it's purpose is to provide them protection so that they can talk...

 

No, just the one that didn't ask the questions at the very CORE of the money trail. Simple really.

You mean besides the dozen or so esteemed economists and officials - all with no affiliation to eachother -- who declare it was suspicious?

You should have defended Enron. "Your honor, how do we know that volume of trading is suspicious? Along what timeline? Is this justice your honor?"

I laugh every time a neocon apologist asserts that a thousand overlapping coincidences occurred in unison in order to have this crime be the flawless "success" that it was. "So? Completely reasonable!" .... It's like believing it's entirely reasonable that a player at your hold'em table gets dealt 10 pair in a row and catches a set on the flop every single time. No need to watch the dealer closer. "I mean, it could happen, right?

At what point does the EXHAUSTIVE coincidence narrative get tired for you guys? I mean really. Is there ANY aspect of 9/11 preparedness and response that was remotely nefarious to you guys? Was ANYONE to blame? Should ANYONE have lost their job? No one among Bush appointees? ... Or does the only example you can bring yourself to admit just default back to Clinton?

Why is it that "team deregulate everything" is usually so breathlessly in love with the integrity and "honor" of government response just on THIS one? ... So odd.

Citation please. Preferably from a federal site.

Deputizing seems to mean you put that person under your employ, and if that person's employment involves classified national security matters (as they define it), is he/she not breaking the law?

The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: How the American Government Is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a Surveillance Society

 

How so? They know EXACTLY who bought the put options and they were all investigated and interviewed by the FBI. How is that not asking questions?

Why is it truthers ignore the fact the guy who bought all the United put options also bought almost the same amount of stock in American? If you're out to make money, you don't buy put options in one airline that is a victim of 9/11 and then buy stock in the OTHER airline that got hit just as hard.

Enron was a crime. There was TONS of EVIDENCE not people's OPINIONS. Why can't truthers see the difference between the two?

Completely flawless? I love it when truthers lie their ass off and hope nobody notices. How can ANYONE claim 9/11 was flawless when only 75% of the attack is a success?

And NOW you're backtracking like the typical truther and flip flopping positions. Suddenly it is no longer "let it happen" but "made it happen".

Were there mistakes made? Yes. Were they on purpose? No. Most were only noticable in retrospect.

So you tell us. Who is to blame for 9/11? We know you truthtards love to blame everyone in the world other than the terrorists even when you claim the government just let it happen.

Why is it that truthers continue to lie about everything. Is it just to make themselves feel better about their failed lives? Is it to make up for the fact they have zero evidence to back up their retarded claims?

Show me who did something wrong on purpose. Who should go to jail? Go ahead. You're claiming there was so much fault. Let's see it.

 

I gave you my citation. It's the securities exchange act. You know, the law that establishes the SEC and grants them authority to regulate the market?

Why just assume what it means? You know what happens when you assume?

http://www.cgsh.com/news/newsdetail.aspx?news=260

Directors by deputization are granted protection under the section 16b -3 exemption of the securities exchange law. The purpose of the deputization is to grant them the opportunity to seek the return of the money that was stolen from them due inappropriate trading. They don't act on behalf of the SEC. They act on behalf of the company.

 

.....and the beat goes on....

I do admire your devotion to the cause (even if it is your job). You're consistently earning your pay, and I think that's an honorable thing in these tough economic times.

 

Lol.... So much fail...
Coincitards unite!

I just have my phone right now.... but see you Monday.

 

Everything's a conspiracy.

Eeeeeeverything.

 

Fangbeer provided correct information AND cited his source.

How exactly does that make him a shill?

 

Let's just say he is an old "official" BS story frontrunner and defender of all that is "official". His agenda has been previously established as such.

 

Credible evidence from a reliable source is Kryptonite to 'truthers'.

 

Ridicule....how very....unique.

 

RtWngaFraud, why did you dodge this question?

 

Did I? (Probably because it was pointless to attempt logical discussion with a....(scuse me...."an OFFICIAL advocate").

 

If you have facts, you should present them. Otherwise you just sound shrill.

You can present your evidence, or just continue dodging the issues.

Lurkers: do take note of the direction 'truthers' take. Especially if you are looking for a good game of dodge-ball.