A major media source finally questions the insider trading

Mr. Fetzer addresses many points quite well enough himself. If you aren't comfortable addressing them...I certainly understand but, please save your dance for somebody else. It's old and boring.

 

Wrong thread. You were avoiding Mr. Fetzer's butt-whipping in a different thread. Do try to keep up.

Now - any evidence to present? Will you hide behind Mr. Fetzer again?

 

Oh my...you really DO need some new material...

Mr. Fetzer speaks much truth...you do not. I'm happy to watch you guys squirm...

 

His points have been addressed and debunked. Everyone sees that. Can't you?

(You are still in the wrong thread.)

 

Really? I don't want to rain on your parade but, who's "everyone"? (strictly for entertainment value you understand).

 

Everyone participating on this section.

If I'm wrong, someone please speak up.

 

<yawn>..

You're wrong...you're always wrong..

How's that?

 

You seem to have (once again) missed what was said.

On purpose?

 

Well, I probably saw who posted what and responded accordingly...I guess you could say that was on purpose.

 

Naturally.

Devoid of evidence, 'truthes' play dodgeball.

 

Very good sir....You got me good once again....smashing sir....absolutely smashing. Now what?

 

Nothing. Lacking evidence, 'truthers' make excuses instead of progress.

 

Good one....you win once again. Congratulations.

 

Has Fetzer responded to anyone attempting to dialog with him here? Where did he address anyone's points or issues raised with his post?

As of yet it's a typical truther brain dump and run. There's no cohesive argument, there's no hypothesis or conclusion drawn. It's a pile of random things he thinks are wrong with the official story.

 

I would LOVE for Mr. Fetzer (or whoever he REALLY is) to try and defend some of the blatant lies he's made. We know he won't and no truther here is going to acknowledge the lies despite the hit they collectively take in whatever credibility they have left.

 

Yeah, like Jim Fetzer is going to register at Political Forum.

When are Richard Gage and David Griffin going to show up?

 

Did you accept them all unquestioningly? Did you verify those that you did accept?

 

Hey Jiggs,cool that you found this site.as you can see there are a lot of paid disinformation agent trolls that have penetrated this site as well as that other site you post at.I'm sure you knew that was going to happen though.

 

I think the jig is up. It must be hard to simultaneously argue that the state had to silence hundreds if not thousands of investors that profited from inside information of the pending attacks, and argue that only a few people knew about the attacks and let them happen.

Maybe he needed a 4 day nap.

 

'Hey everybody!......*shhhhhhhhhhhhh*'

 

This is simply incorrect.

Fixed your post. I'm aware of what you're trying to do here. But before I proceed, please provide a link for context where an entity tries to claim who bought all of them, and that they were ALL interviewed. I'm pretty sure I know the source you're going to provide, but I want to be certain before you hit the default macro response button.

You seem to be typing in past tense here. The puts were made in the days before the attacks. Not after. I know you didn't read the Asia Times story, as it pukes all over your "nothing to see here" narrative, but are you aware of the basic tenets of the claim, yes? Either that, or you just don't write very well.

Irony. You appear to have a real problem understanding what constitutes evidence, or at least differentiating the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence.

9/11 was a crime. There was TONS of evidence that warranted a full, independent investigation. The government investigating itself, washing it's hands of any real investigatory responsibility and transparency, and saying "good enough for me" doesn't really tie up the loose ends as convincingly as you so desperately hope.

I mean, I know your camp hates government in all things CEPT war and 9/11, but your convenient situational ethics doesn't change the fact that the money trail was never followed. If it was, the known financier would have been apprehended and the SEC wouldn't destroy all relevant documents.

LOL. Coincitards really are true champions of semantics. The attacks were most certainly a success, based on the stated goal of both the imagined enemy AND the PNAC boys your team so fervently worships.

Your argument is like saying a batter who went 3 for 4 and drove in 3 runs in a one-run victory didn't have a successful night because he struck out once.

Meanwhile, we spent $2 trillion chasing fraudulent claims and long-dead ghosts, just as "AQ" wanted.

No where in that passage did I advocate a "made it happen" narrative. But, do let me know what the straw man you've created says in response.

You mean like Dave Frasca burying the Phoenix Memo while the perps were already under surveillance? Or just the fact that the financier was never arrested?

That's a loaded question. Are we talking about who's responsible for blowback in the wake of decades of fatally flawed, hawkish foreign policy, or just the men who hijacked the planes? Most certainly a few radical Islamists are "to blame," but someone had to have paid them, and that aspect lies at the core of any crime. Also, they were being watched, and the system was flashing red for months before the attacks. Corruption or incompetence, someone should have lost their job.

Why wasn't anyone in the Bush League at least fired? You coincitards don't seem to have an answer for that, but the most logical conclusion is that firings would lead to alienation, and alienation would lead to talking. And talkers need to be neutralized.

LOL, nice punt to rhetoric... You didn't actually answer my question. I know it's uncomfortable for team "nothing to see here." But why does your team hate government so much, cept for just this one time, when they did the very best they could? Partisan, situational rationalization at its very best.

I already did. You seem to be insisting that I have a specific set of suspects, when all I've argued is that an independent investigation was entirely warranted. You guys don't even want that, as if you'd have to foot the bill or something... LOL

Anyhow, in response to my two main claims, you ignored the Mahmud Ahmed aspect, and then pretended the FBI's (or was it the SEC's?) claim that the insider trading being innocuous was completely plausible.

"your honor, we have looked into the allegations of malfeasance against us, and found nothing. ... "

You: "Oh, OK, cool! Good enough for me, a Republican is in office anyway. So, when do the bombs start dropping?"

 

LOL... let's get something clear early in our blossoming relationship, mmmkay? Unlike people like you, I have a life and intend to live it. Especially over the weekends. I don't spend every waking hour of every waking day on internet message boards holding RW bloviation accountable. I mean, I enjoy it, and the sputtering hate-filled vitriol that it inspires from the "bomb em all" camp, but I only afford myself the time when time allows.

The next time I'm absent from the site for a few days, or even a few weeks, rest assured it has absolutely nothing to do with you, and your "cons=good; libruls=bad" outlook on life.

Anyhow, the two narratives you try to straw man above as some conflict of my argument are not mutually exclusive. DUCY? Probably not.

 

One highly regarded German data retrieval company knew:

Reuters:

"The suspicion is that inside information about the attack was used to send financial transaction commands and authorizations in the belief that amid all the chaos the criminals would have, at the very least, a good head start," said Convar director Peter Henschel.

"Not only the volume but the size of the transactions was far higher than usual for a day like that. There is a suspicion that these were possibly planned to take advantage of the chaos."

...

Richard Wagner, a data retrieval expert at the company, said illegal transfers of more than $100 million might have been made immediately before and during the disaster.

"There is a suspicion that some people had advance knowledge of the approximate time of the plane crashes in order to move out amounts exceeding $100 million," Wagner said. "They thought that the records of their transactions could not be traced after the main frames were destroyed."​

 

"In a flat market, the serious traders place large numbers of put and call options at the same time. It’s a way to generate cash flow if the market is only moving a few points one way or the other. But insider trading is a certainty if you see the two way out of balance, especially by many orders of magnitude. That’s about the clearest warning there is."

- Anonymous trader, pg. 248 of Crossing the Rubicon.

 

Really? You need to provide more evidence than your "good word" because, frankly, you have no credibility. So you're claiming it WASN'T a newsletter suggesting put options on American and an institutional investor who bought United put options and American stock? So show your proof. Go ahead.

You do realize modifying peoples posts is a TOS violation, right?

It is in the 9/11 commission report. You know where it is. But hey. You're the one pretending nothing has been investigated. Why not show your evidence they WEREN'T investigated? Do you have evidence the 9/11 commission, the SEC and the FBI are all lying about the investigation?

You seem to be incapable of understanding simple English. I was making a point that is apparently just beyond your grasp. I understand the put options were before 9/11. SO WAS THE PURCHASE OF AN ALMOST EQUAL AMOUNT OF AMERICAN STOCK BY THE SAME INVESTOR. Why, if you know 9/11 is coming, would you purchase STOCK that is going to plummet?

OK, so present some of this TONS of evidence that indicts the government. Go ahead. Make sure it isn't opinion but real evidence. I keep asking you truthers to present all this evidence you pretend you have and you all run away with your tails between your legs. Why is that? Oh right. Your entire body of "evidence" is lies and opinions.

And how do you follow a money trail in other countries where you have no jurisdiction? Your whole point wasn't who funded 9/11 but you pretending the people involved profited from 9/11. Maybe you should try to stay on point. Oh right. You've already been proven wrong. You're in damage control.

Wrong yet again. Semantics have nothing to do with the difference between a "completely flawless" attack which would be qualified as 4 out of 4 hits. "Completely flawless" is a blatant lie by you. Run if you want, but they are your words, not mine. The rest of your personal attacks aren't worth addressing.

You said the attack was "completely flawless". 3 for 4 is not completely flawless in ANYONE'S book, but keep squirming. It emphasizes the kind of dishonesty of the truthers around here.

Now it is 2 trillion? Wow. What orifice did you pull THAT figure out of?

I don't even have to go back to your previous post. You talk about imagined enemies and long-dead ghosts while talking about AQ with quotes around them as though they don't exist. I am just pointing out your own hypocricy. If you don't like people doing that, don't write such hypocritical bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

So prove malfeasance. Go ahead. If you are going to claim Dave Frasca did it KNOWING the attack on 9/11 was going to be in the form it was, present evidence so we can go arrest him.

As for financier, how do you know there is just one? Seems to me Al Qaeda gets financed from all kinds of sources and the 9/11 attack was only a fraction of Al Qaeda's overall funding. You also like to pretend that the US has the same kinds of investigative powers overseas that it has here in the US, which is downright laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of reality.

No. It is a very simple, straight forward question. Who is to blame for 9/11. The fact you feel the need to dance only shows you know the answer, but don't wish to state it publicly.

Well what did I ask for? Did I ask who Al Qaeda blamed for their reason for the attack? No.

Really? So you're going to try and pretend someone went up to Al Qaeda and said "I will pay you to attack America this way"? Got any evidence of this? Oh wait. Sorry. Forgot who I was talking to. Here is a big dose of reality. People donating to Al Qaeda don't do it to finance specific attacks any more than you donating to the Red Cross is for funding some specific future disaster.

As for your completely ignorant claim that "someone paying them is an aspect that lies at the core of any crime". Wow. Really? So the suicide hijackers were doing it to get paid? Did they get paid in Allah rupees to be spent in the afterlife? How does one arrange payment for that without already being dead?