Sunday, June 18, 2006
Insider Trading Nonsense
MYTH |
The 9/11 Commission Report says:
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

9/11
Conspiracy Theories
SEC
Insider Trading
9/11 Commission
9/11 Commission Report
Put Options
Comments:
<< Home
I'm sorry Will, but you just couldn't be more wrong about 9/11.
But, if this new attitude makes you happy, that's your decision.
But, if this new attitude makes you happy, that's your decision.
I respectfully disagree, of course, and I am indeed happy because this new attitude stems from my increased mental health and intellectual maturity. I'd be happy to keep up a correspondence, and let me know if their are any specific problems you have with my arguments. Warm regards,
WRH
WRH
wrh, the "myths" on your blog here that you claim to have debunked are merely straw man minor issues. i would like to see some real debunking of a real issue. here's one:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
No need to put myths in quotes. I'd be happy to address that page when I have enough free time. These are not straw men, but some of the most widely promoted claims across the entire spectrum of the 9/11 Truth Movement which attempt to support big picture theories like controlled demolition. I've already done "real debunking," and I plan to do it again with the page you cited.
As far as I know, Krongard what still on board with the CIA by 2001, and even JOINED and did not LEAVE the CIA in 1998
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2001/pr03162001.html
Krongard actually "left" in 2004 to become later in 2005 member of global board directors of DLA Piper
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2005/03/14/daily34.html
And regarding the unclaimed 2.5 millions $, you seem to imply that the owners of this cash don't want to touch it because it's "blood money". Really? On Wall-Street, money is money. Period. And besides, if there's no nefarious explanations as to why it is still unclaimed, why would they consider it "blood money" ?
By the way, 9/11 insider trading does not limit itself to these 2 airlines companies you talked about.
The 9/11 Commission's own word about it is basically "The source was a only a fax". I guess that settles it?
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2001/pr03162001.html
Krongard actually "left" in 2004 to become later in 2005 member of global board directors of DLA Piper
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2005/03/14/daily34.html
And regarding the unclaimed 2.5 millions $, you seem to imply that the owners of this cash don't want to touch it because it's "blood money". Really? On Wall-Street, money is money. Period. And besides, if there's no nefarious explanations as to why it is still unclaimed, why would they consider it "blood money" ?
By the way, 9/11 insider trading does not limit itself to these 2 airlines companies you talked about.
The 9/11 Commission's own word about it is basically "The source was a only a fax". I guess that settles it?
Correction:
Krongard was with the CIA since 1998 and was reappointed to another job in 2001, THEN left in 2004
Krongard was with the CIA since 1998 and was reappointed to another job in 2001, THEN left in 2004
"And regarding the unclaimed 2.5 millions $, you seem to imply that the owners of this cash don't want to touch it because it's "blood money". Really? On Wall-Street, money is money. Period. And besides, if there's no nefarious explanations as to why it is still unclaimed, why would they consider it "blood money" ?"
The 9/11 families, especially the ones who are taking conspiracy theories as gospel, might sue because they wrongly think insider trading occurred. Just because it is unclaimed does not mean it is nefarious; the purchaser might feel guilty because they just happened to profit on a tragedy. You and other conspiracists really need to think outside the box and put yourself in the shoes of people who were affected. For example, I know I would get the heck out of a building that got hit by a plane and ravaged by fires, for fear that it might collapse, even without the benefit of hindsight because my gut instinct would kick in.
You seem to be very paranoid; I trust the 9/11 Commission statement because of all the other evidence.
Post a Comment
The 9/11 families, especially the ones who are taking conspiracy theories as gospel, might sue because they wrongly think insider trading occurred. Just because it is unclaimed does not mean it is nefarious; the purchaser might feel guilty because they just happened to profit on a tragedy. You and other conspiracists really need to think outside the box and put yourself in the shoes of people who were affected. For example, I know I would get the heck out of a building that got hit by a plane and ravaged by fires, for fear that it might collapse, even without the benefit of hindsight because my gut instinct would kick in.
You seem to be very paranoid; I trust the 9/11 Commission statement because of all the other evidence.
<< Home



