|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 43)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | September 19, 2001
Black Tuesday:
The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?
Don Radlauer
ICT Consultant
In the wake of the terrorist attacks which caused the destruction of the Twin Towers of New York's World Trade Center, damaged the Pentagon, and destroyed four large airliners with all aboard, securities-exchange investigators on three continents are poring over trading records to determine whether one or more parties profited by their advance knowledge of the disaster.
Investigations are focusing on the many different ways and places in which profits could be made following the Black Tuesday outrage. A brief introduction to "left-handed trading" will help to clarify what may have happened.
Short Selling
Most investors buy stocks much the way they buy houses: They try to buy cheap and sell dear. Some traders, however, try to accomplish the same thing in reverse order -- when they think a stock will decrease in value, they sell the stock first, in the belief that they will be able to buy it back at a lower price later. This is known as short-selling. In order to sell a stock short, a trader must work with a stockbroker who will lend him/her the stock to sell; this is a normal service provided by stockbrokers. At least in theory, an investor can wait a long time before buying back the stock that s/he has sold ("covering the short").
Short-selling can be a highly successful trading strategy for an investor who knows how to time the market and can recognize overpriced stocks before the general public does. On the other hand, it can be highly risky: Since there is no upper limit to how high the stock being shorted can rise in price, the potential loss to the short-seller is infinite. On the other hand, the investor who shorts a stock with advance knowledge of news that will cause its price to drop precipitously can make a killing.
Derivatives - Options and Futures
"Derivatives" are investments that do not involve buying and selling something that has direct value -- such as shares of stock or boxcars of wheat -- but instead involve buying or selling standardized contracts that give their owner the right (or obligation) to buy or sell a stock or a commodity at a particular time and price. For example, a commodity futures trader may spend all his working life buying and selling contracts to purchase boxcar-loads of pork bellies, but unless he badly botches his trades, he will never actually have to take delivery and see or touch a pork belly.
Derivatives relating to stock markets include stock options and stock-index futures contracts. Stock options are contracts that give their owner the right (but not the obligation) to buy ("call" options) or sell ("put" options) stocks at a set price (the "strike" price). American stock options can be exercised at any time until their expiration date; European stock options can be exercised only on one particular day. To prevent total anarchy in the options markets, options are written with standardized expiration dates and standard prices -- for U.S. markets, the last exercize date is the third Friday of each month, and the prices are in intervals such as $40.00 (per share), $42.50, $45.00, and so on. Each option contract gives the right to buy or sell 100 shares of the underlying stock.
Stock options are traded on several different exchanges, including the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, and a number of others.
A stock option can be either "in the money", "at the money", or "out of the money". An "in the money" option is one that has an immediate value -- such as a call option that allows its owner to buy a stock at $50.00 per share when the stock is currently worth $60.00 per share. (In this example, one option contract would be worth $10.00 per share for 100 shares, for a total value of $1,000.00.) Similarly, a put option is "in the money" when the stock is currently worth less than the option's strike price. "At the money" options are options whose strike price equals the current price of the underlying stock; "out of the money" options are options that have no "real" value because they give their owner the right either to buy the stock at more than its current market price, or sell it at less than the market price -- in other words, they will have no value at all unless the stock price changes (in the right direction) before the options expire.
This brings us to one last point about options: Even "out of the money" options have some value, since there is a chance that they may become valuable at some point before they expire. This value is greater or less depending on three factors: First, the longer the option has to run, the more chance there is for the underlying stock's price to change so that the option will become worth exercizing; so longer-term options are more expensive than options that will expire very soon. Second, options that are only slightly "out of the money" are more likely to become worth exercizing than options whose strike price is far above (for calls) or below (for puts) the current market price of the stock. Third, options on stocks whose prices are normally volatile (such as technology stocks) have more chance of becoming valuable than "out of the money" options on stocks whose price doesn't generally change rapidly (such as utility companies). The value of an option contract (beyond any "in the money" value it may have) is known as the option's premium. As the option's expiration date approaches, its premium declines -- until, on the last day before it expires, the option's only value is the extent to which it is "in the money." Most stock options that are purchased never actually become "in the money," and so expire without being exercized.
Stock-index futures contracts are different from stock options in two important ways: First, they are based on the combined price of a basket of stocks, such as the Dow Jones Industrials or the Standard & Poors 500; so their value reflects broader economic and market trends rather than the specific success or failure of a single company. Second, index futures are more like commodity futures than like stock options, in that they represent an obligation to buy rather than the right conveyed by a stock option. An investor who believes that the stock market as a whole -- or one particular segment of it for which there is an index-futures contract available -- is about to decline, can attempt to profit by short-selling in the index-futures market.
Those who have found all the material above too simple will be comforted by the fact that nowadays there are also index options - that is, option contracts that give the purchaser the right to buy or sell a basket of stocks rather than single stocks.
Black Tuesday and the Markets
An event as dramatic and large in scale as the Black Tuesday attacks has a severe and far-reaching effect on worldwide stock markets. This effect is somewhat like the impact of a stone thrown into a pond: There are certain specific companies which are strongly and immediately affected by the attacks; others which are affected more weakly and indirectly; some which decrease in value only because of a general feeling of pessimism rather than because of any direct impact on their bottom line; and some which may even increase in value because they are seen as a "safe haven" in uncertain times, or because they may gain business from an upcoming armed conflict.
Another way of looking at this "ripple" effect is that the farther away a company is from the center of the impact (conceptually speaking), the greater the odds that it would emerge unscathed had the attacks' impact been less horrendous than it was.
The obvious members of the "first circle" of companies strongly affected by the attacks are American Airlines and United Airlines, the two companies whose planes were hijacked and used as flying bombs in the attacks on New York and Washington. These companies' stocks would have decreased in value as a result of any hijacking incident involving their planes, even one with a peaceful resolution. The same is true -- to a lesser extent -- of other airline companies, Boeing (the principal private manufacturer of airliners), and other companies that provide equipment and services to the air-transportation industry.
The next circle includes companies that would weather a "normal" hijacking incident relatively unscathed, but would be significantly affected by a more violent attack. These include the insurance and reinsurance companies which must cover the damage, as well as firms with a major presence in or near the Twin Towers.
The general stock market -- the "third circle" in our analogy -- would not be strongly affected by a "peaceful" hijacking, but would be by a more violent one. It could be argued that even the Black Tuesday attacks as they occurred were not sufficient to cause a really bad "market break" -- while the decline of the Dow Jones Industrial Average on the first day of trading after the disaster was the largest on record in absolute terms, it was not one of the top ten historical declines in relative terms. Had the attacks been more completely successful -- for example, had the fourth plane proceeded to Washington and crashed into the White House or the Capitol -- the overall market would surely have suffered a much worse crash. To understand what might have happened, it is worth comparing the market's performance immediately post-Black Tuesday, when the Dow Jones Industrials dropped by about seven percentage points, and the 1987 market crash, when the Dow dropped by over 22 percent in one day even though there was no obvious external reason for it to so.
Looking for Suspicious Trades
Certain types of transaction can alert securities regulators that the investor who initiated them must have been acting based upon inside knowledge -- in other words, knowing some significant piece of news before the general public. A transaction will be considered suspicious based upon a combination of criteria:
* The timing is just a little too good. Anyone can make an investment at any time, but someone who buys soon-to-be profitable put options or sells a stock short in the few trading days immediately before a major decline in the stock's price will seem to have been more than ordinarily lucky. This criterion is suggestive when present, but is not mandatory. For example, a short sale could have been made quite some time before it would turn out to be profitable. But the longer in advance a short sale or put-option purchase is made, the more uncertainty there will be as to whether events will play out according to plan; so generally the inside trader doesn't make illicit trades very long in advance.
* The transaction itself is too specific. For example, if someone bought puts on United Airlines and American Airlines but not on Delta Airlines, investigators will be pretty sure that the trader knew in advance that these two airlines were targets of the attack. (On the other hand, this works both ways: If there were similar trades in a third airline but not in others, investigators can conclude that one or more flights of that airline were supposed to have been hijacked as well.)
* The transaction is too large. One of the most reliable indicators of illegal insider trading is that the perpetrator has traded at an abnormally high level. In other words, someone who normally makes trades of a few thousand dollars now and then, but suddenly begins to make much bigger plays, may well be doing so because s/he has some form of inside knowledge. If inside-traders kept their trades to reasonable levels, they would seldom, if ever, be caught -- since their trades wouldn't seem especially abnormal and they could be explained as part of their regular investment strategy. However, people typically get caught up by their own greed: when they know for certain that something significant is going to happen to the price of a stock, they can't resist the temptation to make as much money as possible on their knowledge.
* Transactions deviate from normal trading levels. In the options markets, there is normally a reasonably even balance between call and put options on any given stock; and there is normally a reasonably predictable level of activity in options on any particular stock. When the balance between puts and calls is grossly disrupted and the level of volume in options trading is far beyond normal, investigators can be pretty sure that something is up.
* The transaction is too speculative. In other words, the transaction is one that would be unreasonably risky -- if not out-and-out stupid -- were it not that the perpetrator was trading based upon inside knowledge. For example, a large purchase of stock options that were both significantly "out of the money" and relatively close to their expiration date, but suddenly turned out to be valuable based upon some news affecting the underlying stock, would seem to represent an unreasonable degree of prescience.
Investigators will be looking at transactions starting with those that can be most easily identified as suspicious. Already enough has emerged to indicate that some trades were almost certainly made based upon advance knowledge of the Black Tuesday attacks:
* Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. Although there was no news at that time to justify so much "left-handed" trading, United Airlines stock fell 42 percent, from $30.82 per share to $17.50, when the market reopened after the attacks. Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million.
* On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance; but American Airlines stock fell 39 percent, from $29.70 to $18.00 per share, when the market reopened. Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent "insiders," they would represent a gain of about $4 million.
* No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.
* Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45.00 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley's share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million.
* Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45.00 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in these options had been 252 contracts per day. When trading resumed, Merrill's shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by "insiders," their profit would have been about $5.5 million.
* European regulators are examing trades in Germany's Munich Re, Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. (Swiss Re estimates that its exposure will be $730 million; Munich Re expects to pay out as much as $903 million.) It is not clear if any trades in these stocks ring alarm bells; and some negative earnings news announced shortly before the attacks means that a certain amount of unusual selling may have been a normal market reaction and not anything more sinister.
* Amsterdam traders have noted that there was unusual trading activity in KLM Royal Dutch Airlines put options before the attacks.
This is very much a developing story, and we can be sure that more -- and more accurate -- numbers will emerge soon. Investigators will be examining transactions starting with the few days immediately before the attack, and then working backwards; and similarly, they will be looking first at trades in the most obviously affected securities.
Drawing Conclusions
Assuming that investigators are convinced that trades were made based upon advance knowledge of the attacks, they will obviously try to trace these trades back to determine who initiated them. Obviously, anyone who had detailed knowledge of the attacks before they happened was, at the very least, an accessory to their planning; and the overwhelming probability is that the trades could have been made only by the same people who masterminded the attacks themselves.
The difficulty, of course, will be in tracing the transactions to their real source. The trading is sure to have been done under false names, behind shell corporations, and in general to have been thoroughly obfuscated. If in fact the Black Tuesday attacks -- and the associated securities transactions -- were made under orders from Osama bin Laden, then we are dealing with an expert in masking ownership of corporations and making covert deals. This doesn't mean that unraveling the threads of these transactions will be impossible, but it probably won't be quick or easy.
The author is an expert in electronic banking and cash management, and qualified as a floor trader for the New York Futures Exchange. |
|
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading lead directly into the CIA`s Highest Ranks
CIA Executive Director "Buzzy" Krongard managed Firm that handled "put" Options on UAL
by Michael C. Ruppert
FTW Publications, 9 October 2001
Centre for Research on Globalisation, globalresearch.ca, 20 October 2001
Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That evidence also demonstrates that, in the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the "put options" on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency. Until 1997 A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker's Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard's last position at Banker's Trust (BT) was to oversee "private client relations." In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.
Krongard (re?) joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush in March of this year. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11 attacks.
The Scope of Known Insider Trading
Before looking further into these relationships it is necessary to look at the insider trading information that is being ignored by Reuters, The New York Times and other mass media. It is well documented that the CIA has long monitored such trades - in real time - as potential warnings of terrorist attacks and other economic moves contrary to U.S. interests. Previous stories in FTW have specifically highlighted the use of Promis software to monitor such trades.
It is necessary to understand only two key financial terms to understand the significance of these trades. "Selling Short" is the borrowing of stock, selling it at current market prices, but not being required to actually produce the stock for some time. If the stock falls precipitously after the short contract is entered, the seller can then fulfill the contract by buying the stock after the price has fallen and complete the contract at the pre-crash price. These contracts often have a window of as long as four months. "Put Options," purchased at nominal prices of, for example, $1.00 per share, are sold in blocks of 100 shares. If exercised, they give the holder the option of selling selected stocks at a future date at a price set when the contract is issued. Thus, for an investment of $10,000 it might be possible to tie up 10,000 shares of United or American Airlines at $100 per share, and the seller of the option is then obligated to buy them if the option is executed. If the stock has fallen to $50 when the contract matures, the holder of the option can purchase the shares for $50 and immediately sell them for $100 - regardless of where the market then stands.
A "call option" is the reverse of a put option, which is, in effect, a derivatives bet that the stock price will go up.
A September 21 story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, entitled "Black Tuesday: The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?" documented the following trades connected to the September 11 attacks:
* Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options... Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million.
* On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance;... Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent "insiders," they would represent a gain of about $4 million.
* [The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.]
* No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.
* Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley's share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million.
* Merrill Lynch & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day [a 1200% increase!]. When trading resumed, Merrill's shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by "insiders," their profit would have been about $5.5 million.
* European regulators are examining trades in Germany's Munich Re, Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. [FTW Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock making the attacks a "double whammy" for them.]
On September 29, 2001 - in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the major media - the San Francisco Chronicle reported, "Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data.
"The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors - whose identities and nationalities have not been made public - had advance knowledge of the strikes." They don't dare show up now. The suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking.
"... October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000 shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called "put" options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp."
"...The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of these options..."
As reported in other news stories, Deutsche Bank was also the hub of insider trading activity connected to Munich Re. just before the attacks.
CIA, the Banks and the Brokers
Understanding the interrelationships between CIA and the banking and brokerage world is critical to grasping the already frightening implications of the above revelations. Let's look at the history of CIA, Wall Street and the big banks by looking at some of the key players in CIA's history. Clark Clifford - The National Security Act of 1947 was written by Clark Clifford, a Democratic Party powerhouse, former Secretary of Defense, and one-time advisor to President Harry Truman. In the 1980s, as Chairman of First American Bancshares, Clifford was instrumental in getting the corrupt CIA drug bank BCCI a license to operate on American shores. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and banker.
John Foster and Allen Dulles - These two brothers "designed" the CIA for Clifford. Both were active in intelligence operations during WW II. Allen Dulles was the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland where he met frequently with Nazi leaders and looked after U.S. investments in Germany. John Foster went on to become Secretary of State under Dwight Eisenhower and Allen went on to serve as CIA Director under Eisenhower and was later fired by JFK. Their professions: partners in the most powerful - to this day - Wall Street law firm of Sullivan, Cromwell.
Bill Casey - Ronald Reagan's CIA Director and OSS veteran who served as chief wrangler during the Iran-Contra years was, under President Richard Nixon, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and stockbroker.
David Doherty - The current Vice President of the New York Stock Exchange for enforcement is the retired General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.
George Herbert Walker Bush - President from 1989 to January 1993, also served as CIA Director for 13 months from 1976-7. He is now a paid consultant to the Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor in the nation, and which shares joint investments with the bin Laden family.
A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard - The current Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the former Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown and former Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust.
John Deutch - This retired CIA Director from the Clinton Administration currently sits on the board at Citigroup, the nation's second largest bank, which has been repeatedly and overtly involved in the documented laundering drug money. This includes Citigroup's 2001 purchase of a Mexican bank known to launder drug money, Banamex.
Nora Slatkin - This retired CIA Executive Director also sits on Citibank's board.
Maurice "Hank" Greenburg - The CEO of AIG insurance, manager of the third largest capital investment pool in the world, was floated as a possible CIA Director in 1995. FTW exposed Greenberg's and AIG's long connection to CIA drug trafficking and covert operations in a two-part series that was interrupted just prior to the attacks of September 11. AIG's stock has bounced back remarkably well since the attacks. To read that story, please go to http://www.copvcia.com/stories/part_2.html.
One wonders how much damning evidence is necessary to respond to what is now irrefutable proof that CIA knew about the attacks and did not stop them. Whatever our government is doing, whatever the CIA is doing, it is clearly NOT in the interests of the American people, especially those who died on September 11.
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html
Copyright, 2001, Michael C. Ruppert and FTW Publications at http://www.copvcia.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted or distributed for non-profit purposes only. |
|
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | 
Suspicious profits sit uncollected
Airline investors seem to be lying low
- Christian Berthelsen, Scott Winokur, Chronicle Staff Writers
Saturday, September 29, 2001
Suspicious profits sit uncollected
Airline investors seem to be lying low
- Christian Berthelsen, Scott Winokur, Chronicle Staff Writers
Saturday, September 29, 2001
Click to View
Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data.
The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors -- whose identities and nationalities have not been made public -- had advance knowledge of the strikes.
"Usually, if someone has a windfall like that, you take the money and run," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Whoever did this thought the exchange would not be closed for four days.
"This smells real bad."
The source and others in the financial industry speculate that the purchaser or purchasers -- having initially assumed the money could be picked up without detection -- now fear exposure, or that the account has been frozen.
The markets were closed for four days after the attack, giving investigators time to notice the anomalous trades.
Securities regulators and law-enforcement agents throughout the United States and Europe are investigating unusual patterns in short sales and the purchase of "put" options, both of which are financial-market bets that the price of a given stock will fall. Authorities here and abroad have not publicly disclosed any conclusions they have reached and refuse to discuss the case.
There was an unusually large jump in purchases of put options on the stocks of UAL Corp. and AMR Corp. in the three business days before the attack on major options exchanges in the United States. On one day, UAL put option purchases were 25 times greater than the year-to-date average. In the month before the attacks, short sales jumped by 40 percent for UAL and 20 percent for American.
A put option gives the buyer a right to sell the underlying security at a certain price on a certain date; the purchaser profits when the share price drops lower than the agreed sale price. In a short sale, an investor borrows stock from a broker and sells it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price.
October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called "put" options outstanding, according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp.
Other financial professionals have told The Chronicle that an estimated $5 million to $10 million in all could have been made on the trades, including trading on other days and purchases of options on the parent company of American, AMR Corp. Four United and American aircraft crashed in the attacks.
BIN LADEN'S FINANCES
Meanwhile, in Herzliya, Israel, a group headed by former Israeli intelligence officials -- the Interdisciplinary Center, a counter-terrorism think tank -- has issued a report on Osama bin Laden's finances ("Black Tuesday: The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?") saying insiders profited by nearly $16 million.
The money was made on Sept. 6, 7 and 10 in transactions involving United, American, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co., the center said. Morgan Stanley occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center; Merrill Lynch's headquarters offices were nearby.
The figure excluded other unusual trades involving insurance companies with significant exposure to damage claims resulting from the attacks. These include Munich Re of Germany, which expects to pay out more than $1.5 billion, and the AXA Group, a French firm, which could be on the hook for $550 million.
A spokesman for the Securities and Exchange Commission declined to comment on a New York Times report yesterday that the SEC had found "benign" explanations for the trading activity.
But the spokesman, John Heine, said the commission stands by a statement made eight days after the attack by Stephen M. Cutler, acting SEC enforcement director. The statement -- reiterated in substance Wednesday by SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt -- said the commission was "pursuing all credible leads."
SHORT-SELLING OF INSURANCE
Spokesmen for British securities regulators and the AXA Group also confirmed yesterday that investigations are continuing.
The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of the options. Rohini Pragasam, a bank spokeswoman, declined comment.
Investigators' attentions previously had been drawn to Germany because of the residence there earlier in the year of some of the principal suspects in the Sept. 11 attacks and unusual patterns in the short-selling of insurance, airline and other financial company stocks there prior to the attacks.
Last weekend, German central bank president Ernst Welteke said a study pointed to "terrorism insider trading" in those stocks.
There are many reasons the bets against United and American could have been innocent, in view of the tough time the airline industry has had this year and heavy losses experienced by both airlines in particular. But the trades were not replicated in the stocks or options of any of the airlines' competitors.
CANDIDATES LIVE IN ARAB NATIONS
While the identities of possible beneficiaries of advance knowledge of the attacks were not known publicly, experts were quick to point to possible candidates -- all presumed to be affluent residents of Arab nations.
The former chairman of the State Department's National Commission on Terrorism, L. Paul Bremer, said he obtained classified government analyses early last year of bin Laden's finances confirming the assistance of affluent Middle Easterners.
|
|
|
|
| dennis |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
 |
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
This, sir, proves that YOU are the troll.
Really though, colonel provided actual arguments, yet becasue you dont like to hear what he says, you ignore him? I suddenly feel like troll is too good of a description for you... |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
Rather than go off topic and actually contributing to the thread you just repeat what the others are saying; that I never answered their questions. Let me tell you something:
I will not answer anyone that says things like:
"You can't argue my point you nut job because the government says or the media says what actually happened" or "you won't respond because your insane/conspiracy nut/wack job/etc."
How can anyone respond to baited arguments like that. I sure as hell shouldn't. So I'd rather just ignore them than get into a piss poor argument on the level of trolling.
You see trolling is when someone uses profanity to argue their point as well as try to degrade the person.
| quote: | In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls. Often, trolls assume multiple aliases, or sock puppets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
|
I don't have to let that happen so I try to be the better person by ignoring people like that.
After all you wouldn't want me to call you a nut/wack job/loser/etc just because I think I am right now do you? That's the same thing here but I see it in concert with the lot of them and somehow they think I am supposed to let it happen while I stand idly by.
I don't think so.
Online forums are safe for these people because of the anonymous nature. They can sit thousands of miles away acting as if they can bully people believing they are right and you are wrong while NEVER contributing anything OBJECTIVE to the discussion. This only pleases those that want to call people names from afar when they can never say these things in an actual public setting. Hence my occasional use of the phrase "cowards behind keyboards". |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
"The coward only threatens when he is safe."
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Torquato Tasso
(II, 3, 207)
So why use ignore?
If everyone that opposes is ignored, then one is only left preaching to the choir or likes to hear themselves talk... |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
Ok fi3starter shouldn't be on ignore he might be annoying but he isn't anything like PCK.
Im glad that somebody puts pck on ignore he doesn't debate or anything he just assualts an indiidual because he is a behind the keyboard. Man if we ever met he would get an ass whoping like he deserves to get and emc^2 too. |
|
|
| jonSun |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Ok fi3starter shouldn't be on ignore he might be annoying but he isn't anything like PCK.
Im glad that somebody puts pck on ignore he doesn't debate or anything he just assualts an indiidual because he is a behind the keyboard. Man if we ever met he would get an ass whoping like he deserves to get and emc^2 too. |
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Ok fi3starter shouldn't be on ignore he might be annoying but he isn't anything like PCK.
Im glad that somebody puts pck on ignore he doesn't debate or anything he just assualts an indiidual because he is a behind the keyboard. Man if we ever met he would get an ass whoping like he deserves to get and emc^2 too. |
I try to at least negotiate.
Not saying I don't sling mud with the rest, but who doesn't? :p ;) |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Ok fi3starter shouldn't be on ignore he might be annoying but he isn't anything like PCK. |
He doesn't debate, he baits and trolls arguments.
I add that a few on that list have already been banned by Wicked Neo. Not because I asked him to but I am sure for rule violations.
| quote: | | Im glad that somebody puts pck on ignore he doesn't debate or anything he just assualts an indiidual because he is a behind the keyboard. Man if we ever met he would get an ass whoping like he deserves to get and emc^2 too. |
+1.
Back on topic. What does anyone think about a cover-up. I know I left a few articles for people to read. I am sure someone has a question or two for or against. |
|
|
| Renegade |
I have neither the time nor the inclination to read through this thread, but there's something I'd like to ask the conspiracy theorists here (presuming it hasn't already been addressed).
The theory goes that the WTC towers were brought down by explosives, correct? If this is true, then I would first need to ask where the explosives were placed? During the collapse of the two towers, there is no indication of the use of explosives (both in terms of visual explosions and in the manner in which the towers collapsed) below the point at which the planes entered the buildings, so am I right in presuming that the explosives must have been placed in or near the floors where the planes hit the buildings? If I'm right here, then I have two questions:
1) Wouldn't it be a fairly pointless endeavour to place explosives in areas that you can only assume the planes are going to hit? What if the pilot was off by a few floors? What if the explosives were damaged by the explosion of the plane (which they doubtless would have been)? Wouldn't the explosion of the plane be as good a catalyst as the explosion of dynomite?
2) How would the use of controlled explosives that high up in the building have ensured a collapse more neat than the one that ensued from the uncontrolled explosion of the plane? If the idea of the buildings falling so neatly from the planes alone is inconceivable, why would the idea of the buildings falling so neatly from planned explosions at exactly the same level be any more conceivable?
There are plenty better arguments against the conspiracy theories of course, but I'd be interested in hearing the responses to these ones? |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I have neither the time nor the inclination to read through this thread, but there's something I'd like to ask the conspiracy theorists here (presuming it hasn't already been addressed). |
Great post. This is a great model for debate:
| quote: | | The theory goes that the WTC towers were brought down by explosives, correct? If this is true, then I would first need to ask where the explosives were placed? |
I am no explosives expert but I would guess that anywhere on the central core of box columns. The exact placement would have to be based on expert advice. There is nothing along this theory that could be discussed by any theorist unless he was or is a demolitions expert.
| quote: | | During the collapse of the two towers, there is no indication of the use of explosives (both in terms of visual explosions and in the manner in which the towers collapsed) below the point at which the planes entered the buildings, so am I right in presuming that the explosives must have been placed in or near the floors where the planes hit the buildings? If I'm right here, then I have two questions: |
There are many pictures that show plumes preceding the actual falling of the towers. But exactly where those explosives would have been placed would be up to the experts. I would also add that there is no forensic evidence since all the steel sans the NIST collection has been scrapped overseas.
| quote: | | 1) Wouldn't it be a fairly pointless endeavour to place explosives in areas that you can only assume the planes are going to hit? What if the pilot was off by a few floors? What if the explosives were damaged by the explosion of the plane (which they doubtless would have been)? Wouldn't the explosion of the plane be as good a catalyst as the explosion of dynomite? |
There are people that believe that thermite was used. Just how it was triggered cannot be known since the steel has been scrapped.
| quote: | | 2) How would the use of controlled explosives that high up in the building have ensured a collapse more neat than the one that ensued from the uncontrolled explosion of the plane? If the idea of the buildings falling so neatly from the planes alone is inconceivable, why would the idea of the buildings falling so neatly from planned explosions at exactly the same level be any more conceivable? |
I don't believe that the towers fell neatly compared to WTC 7 which did fall neatly that was not touched by an airplane.
An experted article on the demolition of an already damaged building:
| quote: | The explosive charges used to bring down the Landmark [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
weighed only 364 pounds, consisting of 198 pounds of 60-percent nitroglycerine-based gel in 1-1/4 inch sticks, and 166 pounds of RDX (a C-4 derivative). The explosives were supplied by Buckley Powder Company.
To break structural steel, 369 linear shaped armor-piercing charges were required. Concrete columns were broken with the larger charges of RDX ranging from 2 ounces to 12 ounces at a density of 600 grains to 4,000 grains per lineal foot.
All of the charges were detonated with a non-electric system, and each charge position had trump lines and multiple detonators to ensure reliability. The detonation period was set for a total of six seconds, with 120 different sequenced and delayed detonations of 8 milliseconds or greater.
http://www.acppubs.com/article/CA6325450.html
|
Pay attention to the primary, secondary and tertiary explosions:
Great video to show you an example:
Second angle doesn't show the base explosion:
| quote: | | There are plenty better arguments against the conspiracy theories of course, but I'd be interested in hearing the responses to these ones? |
If you watch any of the films mentioned on this thread by many people they would explain it more. Films like Loose Change, 9/11 Eyewitness or Alex Jones' films. Or you can read Dr. Steven Jones article:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html |
|
|
|
|
