A major media source finally questions the insider trading

Really? Care to prove THIS claim? First off, the system NEVER stops flashing red as we are ALWAYS under threat of attack. I know you truthers love to pretend the only attack on the radar was 9/11, but us people here in the real world know the US is investigating hundreds if not thousands of credible threats a day.

So you want people to lose their jobs? OK. Present the evidence that they knew of the attacks and did it to facilitate the attacks (that would be MIHOP, BTW), or had actual workable evidence, knew it, and flubbed it. NO EVIDENCE prior to 9/11 would have exposed the attack and that includes the Phoenix memo and Moussaoui's evidence.

I love it when the political bigotry starts showing through. Bush was in office less than nine months before the attacks. I also love how you truthers like to pretend a change in President also means a complete change in staffing in every government position to make them all "Bush League" as opposed to "Clinton League", "G H W Bush League", or even "Reagan League".

Seriously?!?!? I love how truthers think someone just keeping their job would stop ANYONE from exposing a conspiracy. I still can't comprehend the way truthers think the government is some borglike entity where everyone feels, acts, and thinks the same regardless of who is in power or what is going on.

As for the most logical conclusion, your explanation is the paranoid delusions of a truther, not the truth. The most logical conclusion is that there was not enough evidence to prove either malfeasance or incompetence. Were mistakes made? In hindsight? Yes. Could the same be said in real time? No. Do you honestly think we should expect absolute perfection from our intelligence agencies even when said perfection involves seeing into the future?

You haven't presented any evidence to back up your case. You've made a bunch of claims, but haven't backed any of it up. Until you do, you're expecting everyone to just trust you that you are telling the truth. We've seen just how credible and honest you are. Why would ANYONE without an agenda trust a word you say?

No. You didn't.

You have to have evidence that proves an independent investigation is warranted. What have you produced so far? A bunch of opinions. Opinions are NOT evidence.

Well, YOU may not be a taxpayer living on welfare, but the rest of us pay taxes and that DOES foot the bill.

Regardless, the reason I would be against an independent investigation besides the fact there is no evidence that would warrant one, is that truthers have proven time and time and time and time and time again that any evidence that doesn't say what they want it to say is either ignored or it is assumed to be manufactured. Proof of that can be found right here in your own post. The 9/11 commission clearly outlined what the investigation with the SEC and FBI entailed to find the origin of the put options. You dismiss it without a single shred of evidence it is in any way wrong.

No, I didn't. There is NO EVIDENCE outside a claim by the Times of India that Ahmed was in any way, shape or form guilty of participating in the attacks. The Times of India couldn't back their bull(*)(*)(*)(*) up, so why should I believe them and you?

Well, let's see. They traced it down to the people who actually bought the put options. They investigated them and found they had no ties to Al Qaeda and no way of knowing 9/11 was going to happen. Do you have evidence they didn't? That it is all a lie? If so, present it.

So prove the government was behind the put options. What? You can't? Wow I am SOOOOO surprised!

Nice personal attack, but completely baseless. BTW, your conservative bigotry is showing. It is obvious you want to blame 9/11 on Republicans / conservatives, but the truth of the matter is the blame lies with Al Qaeda. The issues inside our intelligence agencies that possibly could have prevented 9/11 from happening spans numerous administrations both Republican and Democrat. Maybe it is time for you to take the blinders off and look at the truth in the ugly light of day.

 

Yet the one example of a serious trader (the others were working off a news letter and were not "serious traders") not only bought United put options, but also bought almost the same amount of American stock (call options). Why do you insist on ignoring this fact?

 

See, this is the difference between truthers and everyone else. Truthers pretend that the above segment proves people "knew". Let me highlight why this is so obviously false.

"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."​

[/QUOTE]

See, most of us understand that these people are talking about what MIGHT be, not what IS. Also, none of the transactions approached anywhere near 100 million. But hey. Since when has the facts ever stopped truthers from posting a lie?

 

I can tell you like taking the paid shills here to school.lol

 

That is a funny way of saying he got his ass handed to him! Troll all you want. You've failed to back up any of your claims and repeat claims even after you've been shown they are wrong which makes your posts nothing but lies. Who would believe a troll with serious credibility problems?

 

Sounds like a lot of sour grapes for not wanting to admit you were wrong about deputization. And by the way, who said anything about bomb em all, or conservatives and liberals? Sounds like you jumped to an unsupported conclusion. It would certainly explain your issue with this insider trading thing.

You made the statement in a different thread that only a relatively small number of people needed to be aware of the attack in order to let it happen, did you not? You also stated here that the SEC deputized hundreds if not thousands of people and then insinuated that they did so because they would be bound by a gag order, did you not? You made these contradictory statements. I created no strawman. People can see the contradiction for themselves.

If these possible thousands of people did not have advanced warning of the attack they could not have had insider information. If there was no inside information there was no insider trading. If that is the case they were not deputized to shut them up as you insinuated here.

If these people did have inside information or were made aware of inside information and the state deputized them to shut them up, then this crushes your statement that relatively few people know about or have evidence to prove that there was reliable advanced warning of the specific attack.

Instead of explain this contradiction you chose to change the subject and obfuscate. At this point the only conclusion can be that you cannot explain your contradiction.

 

LOL.... Project much?

Did you actually read the Asia Times story in the original post, or in your goofy red, white & blue rage, did you miss the premise of the thread entirely?

It was far more than just UA and AA stock, as you'd have the forum believe. Liar.

Focusing on the two airlines alone is classic denialist distraction ploy. Abnormal trading occurred on 26 companies, in oil, T-bills, gold, hotels and insurance ... ALL of whom were directly affected on 9/11.

Ah yes, it's the forum's top-ranked instigator playing lawful forum cop, after the fact. You seem to do that a lot: Act like a clown, and then tattle when others return reciprocal fire. I guess when it comes to ToS violations, it's different when you do it, huh sunshine?

I knew it. ... Your source is the laughably compromised 9/11 Commission report, directed by a Bush League insider, allergic to subpoena power, and in close contact with Karl Rove from start to finish. A Grisham novel, not a judicial report by any definition. A book deal, which began with a mandate to "not assign blame" before a single question was asked. Good enough for you, huh Bushie loyalist? LOL...

Now tell the forum the whole story: The Commission barely mentioned the insider trading, save for a footnote. Not very comprehensive coverage of how they arrived at their conclusion despite it being (in my firm opinion) one of the two most glaring holes in the "official story." And even in that footnote, it did NOTHING more than take the SEC's word for it and never did any work of its own. More government investigating itself, but good enough for people like you.

Here's the passage, pg. 499, footnote 130:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

95% of the UAL puts is not ALL of the trading, you laughable liar. It's not even ALL of the UAL trading. Regardless, the trading deserved it's own chapter, let alone one measly paragraph in the footnotes.

Why no mention of the company newsletter in question? Who owned it? Did Keane-Hamilton question them? How were they questioned? Why was no one quoted in the footnote? Who received the newsletter? Why no mention of the other obnoxiously suspicious trading besides just AA and UA? Why would the SEC take the unprecedented step to destroy their records?

Team Nothing to See Here never has any real answers for those rather obvious holes in the official conspiracy story. Where's the transparency? How can anyone, in any good conscience, call that an exhaustive effort? That can't. Period. So they lie to themselves, and anyone who doesn't know better, pretending the government did its due diligence in "investigating" itself.

Do better.

LOL!!!!

The issue here is the volume of puts vs. calls, NOT puts vs. shares. What they did by buying shares was an obvious and classic hedge, and if you knew anything the stock market besides what you sop up via scrambling to popularmechanics.com and other laughable denialist sites, you'd understand what is being claimed here. Unfortunately, I'm dealing with yet another flag-draped loyalist who is learning as he goes along. One single put option usually involves 100 shares. But you wouldn't know that, because you don't even know the difference between a call option and a share.

My stated mandate was merely to show that an independent investigation was always entirely warranted, not to pass an indictment. You don't get to redefine my thesis as it fits your ridiculous, hissy-fit list of requirements, anymore than you wouldn't get to skip to closing arguments before asking the judge what's even admissible.

If that's what you need to tell yourself. But let's understand something early on here: I don't run from coincitards. Never have, because you all are devoid of intellectual honesty. I've locked horns with far more talented official story disciples than you. You're just more arrogant than most, which ALWAYS keeps me coming back.

Again, you seem to have a profound mental blockage acknowledging what constitutes evidence. At best, you can't seem to differentiate the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence at all. To you, anything less than Dick Cheney laughing maniacally on video as the towers fell is "no proof!" So, you can squawk "so?!!? Prove it even MORE!" over and over again like a robot if you like. But you're not fooling anyone. ALL of these are "evidence" of a false investigation, from the insider trading to the Phoenix Memo to the apathy to apprehend Mahmud Ahmad.

Moving on... (cont.)

 

Nope. I've presented evidence in the form of an SEC and FBI investigation that came up with exactly who was involved with the trading. All YOU'VE done is plugged your ears and childishly went "LA LA LA" while pretending nothing was done. Sorry, but your ignorant pretending doesn't cut it nor does your failed attempt at pretending it is others "projecting".

I read the Asia Times story. And?

Conspiratards are going to see foul play no matter how innocent it is. You and your fellow truthers prove this time and time again.

More lies from you. I didn't report it. I just pointed out you're breaking the TOS. You're just ASSuming thing yet again.

A whole buttload of excuses without a single shred of actual evidence to prove the report is fundamentally flawed. Fail.

What more did it need? Was it part of the terrorist attacks? No. Was it nefarious in nature? Only to paranoid conspiratards who get spooked by any coincidence that play to their paranoid delusions.

Who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) about your opinion no matter how firm it is? Do a FOIA with the SEC and FBI to find out how they arrived at their conclusion instead of whining about it online like a baby.

Yet another lie even after the truth has been shown to you. More evidence of the complete lack of honesty among the truthers. It was not the SEC alone that did the investigation as was clearly laid out and explained to you. Yet you IGNORE this fact in order to lie your ass off about the truth. Way to destroy your own credibility.

According to who? A proven liar who blatantly lies about the facts? UAL puts are the only trades that would benefit someone if the stock goes down making all other trades meaningless. Take away 95% of all puts and you have normal put traffic and not enough to make a person rich. What else do you have to waste people's time?

Mainly because dishonest and rather disgusting truthers tend to make asses out of themselves and harass people who've been named. Would it make a difference to you if they WERE named? You poo poo everything the commission says anyway so why would we believe naming the newsletter or the people involved would satisfy dishonest people who don't even bother to tell the truth? Seriously. What benefit would it have? People like you wouldn't believe it and nobody else cares.

Yet another bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim by you.

Because they don't believe your blatant lies?

Sure they can. It is called sanity by looking at the evidence instead of believing a blatant liar who tries to pretend it was only the SEC.

The only proven liar here is you.

No need. You've completely destroyed your own credibility through your own posts.

Blah blah blah. What is your point? That you try to mask your ignorance by pretending you have more knowledge? The issue is NOT the volume of puts vs. calls but whether or not the put options were purchased with foreknowledge of 9/11. As for your ignorance on puts vs shares and why the investor didn't make nearly as much as he could have, well, you can't fix stupid. Yes, there are 100 shares in an option. He bought 2,000 put options on UAL and 115,000 shares of AMR. If the AMR purchase had been call options, he would have only paid the strike and walked away with a tidy profit. Instead he lost his shirt on the AMR stock that was already purchased by 9/11 while making an unknown profit on UAL shares based on the contract.

You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that a new investigation is warranted or that truthers would even believe it unless it said what they wanted it to say. You've already proven you are more than willing to completely ignore evidence based on your own bias and agenda. All we have are your paranoid delusions. That isn't enough.

And? Where is the evidence? You CLAIM you don't run, but here you are tucking tail and running. All you did was blow a lot of smoke and make excuses while stroking your ego. Typical for truthers, but not exactly conductive for debate, is it.

You OPINION that the investigations are flawed doesn't mean dick. That is the problem with truthers. They believe OPINION is evidence. It isn't. You PRETENDING the SEC was the only agency involved in the put investigation and thus shows the investigation is flawed is a perfect example. You don't show any evidence, circumstantial or direct, that proves the investigation is flawed and instead are reduced to lying about it to try and make your case.

Now. Instead of crying like a baby about people asking for evidence, show your EVIDENCE that the investigation was flawed and a new one is warranted. Remember, your absolutely retarded opinion is NOT evidence no matter HOW big of an opinion you have of yourself.

 

Speaking of damage control, you've now fallen back to insisting we couldn't possibly get to the bottom of the 9/11 money trail due to international jurisdictions. Holy crap, did you just compromise your entire argument. The man was "forced out" due to his radical leanings, despite being the HEAD OF THEIR CIA!!!! Was he not an enemy?

We had no jurisdiction showing Saddam had WMD, but we kinda didn't give a crap, did we? If we really wanted answers regarding 9/11, then countries (especially those we just got done helping fight the Communists), can either cooperate or risk a nice carrier group off their shores.

How convenient that your entire "no proof" argument relies on the U.S. stopping short due to "jurisdiction." LOL!!!! ... Is this where you chicken out and proclaim "but Pakistan has NUKES!" as a ploy to avoid getting real answers regarding the 9/11 financier? Sure seems like it. ... "Jurisdiction"... LOL... Good one.

So, just to review your curious foreign policy ideology:

"Shoot first, ask questions later" pre-emptive foreign policy: Entirely justifiable.
Merely presuring foreign governments to detain rogue officials for questioning: Out of our jurisdiction.
​

Noted.

It's official. I'm debating against an 11-year-old.

I'll say it again, and if you wanna act like Dwight Schrute regarding literal definitions, that's your problem: For the stated goals of AQ and UBL, the attacks of 9/11 met those goals precisely.

Your dumb argument is like saying that D-Day wasn't a success because of Omaha and Utah Beaches.

I didn't even say "completely flawless," YOU said I did, genius. Look it up. Here were my exact words from post 13, you unrivaled debate fraud:

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?​

So, not only do you waste time obsessing over a semantics argument, you suck HORRIBLY at quoting accurately. Then you have the gall to assert that I'm the one being dishonest. Oh, the Ironiez!

In any event, WAY to ignore the point in the post to begin with: That your team needs to accept a thousand overlapping coincidences as completely feasible. Didn't wanna address that part, did you?

Are you still working with Paul Wolfowitz figures from 2002? LOL... Costs escalate, you understand how that works, yes?

Gosh, I dunno... The Congressional Budget Office?

Reuters

CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq.​

No? OK, how 'bout the World Bank?:

"The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions...Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."​

Oh wait, are you gonna get just as pretentiously literal with UNDERestimates too? .... If so, strike that $3 tillion claim. I only said $2 trillion, my bad.

I believe you said something about staying on topic? LOL ... Either way, you won't acknowledge that I crushed your weak serve again.

Way to ignore my point, and make yourself look even more clueless in the deflection process. My point remains: Their goal was to bankrupt America. We're well on our way. Get it yet?

That's still not "made it happen" theory. DUCY? Probably not. ... Your capacity to actually think has been thoroughly compromised throughout this exchange.

LOL! More of the same: "PROVE IT! SO? PROVE IT MORE!!"... Again, I don't have to frame this debate the way goofy you sees fit. If you actually read the original post, you'd have a hard time denying that I only need to show that a real, independent, uncompromising investigation was entirely warranted from the start, always has been, and never actually was.

Who said there was just one? I mean, besides you in your never-ending tendency to create straw men and false dichotomy? What in the world is your point? I merely identified one who was never apprehended for questioning. I said nothing about him being exclusive. I asked you this before, but stick to what I actually type, not what your denialist brain hopes I mean.

More situational rationale regarding U.S. influence abroad when dealing with radical Islam.

Your premise goes like this:

Any honest advocate of justice: We could put international pressure on them to let our agents talk to Ahmad. Afterall, our CIA practically MADE their ISI in order to fight the Soviets.
Denialists like Patriot: But, but!! We can't do that! We don't have jurisdiction!
Any honest advocate of justice: It's the greatest crime in U.S. history, and a potential act of war. Do you want answers or not?
Denialists like Patriot: We don't need answers THAT bad, jeez! Respect teh lawz, demmit!
​

LOL

I already stated it. Muslim radicals carried it out. Bush League cronies knew it was coming, and did nothing. ... What are you confused about at this point? Do you even know what "let it happen on purpose" even means, or are you just so desperate to conflate MIHOP with LIHOP, despite them being entirely different standards of evidence? Clever, but you're not fooling anyone here.

So they paid for the training and the attacks with their own money? Perhaps their summer job supplemented their collective incomes.

Of course someone paid them. The evidence of at least $100,000 of which (as confirmed by both the India Times, Indian intel, AND the FBI), points to the chief of Pakistan's ISI, a man who was never questioned and allowed to quietly retire.

 

You are ignoring the Commision's Terrorist Financing Staff Monograph.
Start with Appendix B

 

Appendix B is nothing more than a table of names... Link to what you're talking about, or tell a page you're referring to.

 

No, it's quite a bit more than that.

govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_App.pdf

Page 15 Appendix B: Securities Trading

 

While you've failed to address the FACT the US has limited ability to investigate in foreign countries, you've admitted that Ahmed was forced out due to his radical leanings, NOT because he was funding Al Qaeda.

So now you're advocating armed conflict on any nation that doesn't do what we want? What kind of neo con are you?

A whole lot of waffling and whining, but you have yet to address the facts. Did the US have jurisdiction? No. Did the US have full cooperation? No. COULD the US have parked carriers off their shore and forced the issue? Yes. DID we? No. So all you've done is wasted everyone's time with bull(*)(*)(*)(*) excuses.

Except you are once again lying your ass off. Where did I ever say shoot first ask questions later is a justified foreign policy? Also you are lying about this being just about Ahmed. It isn't. A proper investigation would involve the cooperation of not just the governments but the financial institutions within that country. Or are you trying to pretend funding starts with and ends with Ahmed?

Do you routinely get your ass kicked by 11 year olds? Is that how you arrived at that conclusion?

That wasn't what you said. You said "flawless attack". So in your word flawless doesn't actually mean flawless, but flawed? Nice to know.

As for the stated goals of AQ and OBL, they didn't meet them. They wanted 9/11 to destroy the west. We're still here. Osama wanted the Muslim world to rise up against the West. That didn't happen either. They wanted us out of the Middle East. Last time I looked we're still there. So how exactly do you define precisely? Is it the same way you define flawed? I think I have it now. In your world a flawless attack that met the goals precisely is one where only 75% of the attacks hit and few, if any of the goals were met, much less met precisely. Pretty pathetic there, JC! You should have quit with the 11 year old insult.

Wrong yet again. Where has anyone said D-Day was a flawless attack? You can run from your mistakes, but you sure don't do your reputation or credibility any favors for doing so.

Still trying to cover up your own dishonesty by trying to deflect? It isn't working.

I did. Not my fault you couldn't catch it. First off, a "thousand overlapping coincidences" which you would be hard pressed to name more than a handful of don't constitute evidence, so congrats on once again lying in order to try and make a point. It didn't work. Second, there are coincidences everywhere you look. The more you look, the more you will find. There were numerous coincidences between the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy. Does this mean there is a connection? Does it need a new, independent investigation to examine these coincidences?

Gosh, I dunno... The Congressional Budget Office?

I believe you said something about staying on topic? LOL ... Either way, you won't acknowledge that I crushed your weak serve again.[/quote]
Wrong yet again. Does your arm ever get sore from trying to pat yourself on the back so much? The Iraq war was not about 9/11 was it. Nope. In other words, your claims are completely off topic.

You do realize Obama has done far more to destroy this country financially that Osama, right? But hey, if you want to try and pretend everything spent post 9/11 is solely due to Al Qaeda, feel free. It only proves my claims of paranoid delusions.

More baseless insults without addressing the point. The desperation from you is almost palpable!

Keep runnin JC! You haven't provided any evidence. All you do is whine about people demanding evidence for you to back up your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims. That doesn't cut it. POST EVIDENCE. Your paranoid delusions is not reason enough to do another investigation. You've already proven time and time again you will ignore it just like you've ignored / downplayed the investigations that have already happened.

You like to make (*)(*)(*)(*) up and then pretend your (*)(*)(*)(*) doesn't stink, don't you. Pretend all you want. You trying to put words in peoples mouths only shows your utter desperation.

I know what it means. I also know that you keep bringing up points that don't make sense from a LIHOP standpoint. It is a typical truther tactic to pretend you are for one thing while debating something completely different. You try to pretend it was a LIHOP operation but then there was a huge coverup after the fact. If they just let it happen, what do they have to cover up? You pretend the 9/11 commission report is false, yet you now claim that is what you believe. Make up your mind!

It was NOT confirmed by the FBI. Blatant lie once again. Contact Dennis Lormel. Ask him directly. It is one thing you can do that will prove to yourself that your claims are full of (*)(*)(*)(*). Of course you won't, but that is beside the point.

So what does Ahmed have to do with LIHOP anyway? Oh right. You're a LIHOPINO.....

 

Every single incident that took place on 9/11 is a coincidence. That's what coincidence means; 2 or more incidences that take place at the same time. The logical implication is that there's no proven direct relationship between the two simply because they took place at the same time. That's not to mean such a relationship does not exist, or cannot be proven. Logic simply dictates that coincident events are not inherently related. I thought I should let you know that since you had a little confusion regarding what the word flawless means.

I also think it's funny that you've coined this phrase "coincitards" since your purpose here is to try to string coincidences together to form some sort of narrative. Especially since you've jumped to a host of fallacious conclusions to do so.

Now,

Do you plan on addressing the fact that:

1. You were wrong about the deputization process and the reason for such.

2. You are wrong about the capability of the software system that your article is built upon.

3. You're wrong about the scope of people necessarily involved in a LIHOP scenario (you can't even help but contradict yourself between a few people knowing, and the government actively suppressing the knowledge of thousands.)

 

Just for fun, let's string together the coincidences that the article references.

1. Someone has developed a software program that can access different types of databases.
- It's assumed that it can decode databases anywhere on the planet
- It's assumed that the information contained in these databases can be interpreted by the program.
- It's assumed that the program uses AI to achieve these tasks.
- It's assumed that the program was used to gain advanced knowledge of the 9/11 attack.
- It's assumed that the program disseminated this information to people.
- It's assumed that this program's capability, and use is exclusive (ie there aren't thousands of programs currently monitoring financial markets)

2. Several hijackers banked at Alex Brown
- It's assumed that they passed on information about the attack.
- It's assumed that this information was used to authorize trades for the purpose of profiting from the attack.
- It's assumed that this information was then interpreted using an AI system that learned the reason the trades themselves were made.

It's a little far fetched, isn't it?

 

So, the op is wrong. There was no inside trading on 9/11 huh? Boy...you guys know everything! That didn't happen either..wow. Just a bunch of angels on 9/11, all mixed up and completely innocent of wrong doing. (speaking of far fetched).