SEC finds no sign 9/11 conspirators bet on attacks
http://www.aolnews.com/money/article/sec-finds-no-sign-911-conspirators-bet-on-attacks/19461094
(April 30) -- Nearly nine years, two recessions and thousands of conspiracy theories later, the U.S. government has made it official: Initial speculation after the 9/11 terrorist attacks that plotters made financial bets against airlines or other companies hurt by the events was unfounded.
The Securities and Exchange Commission began its inquiry into the matter on Sept. 12, 2001, and went on to examine trading in the U.S. and foreign securities markets that took place between Aug. 20 of that year and Sept. 11. While the agency wrapped up its investigation in May 2002, and there were references to the SEC's conclusions in the report by the federal 9/11 Commission, the findings were kept secret.
The Securities and Exchange Commission found no evidence that the conspirators behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks made financial bets against the airlines or other companies hurt by the terrorist assault.
But the privately operated, nonpartisan National Security Archives fought for six years to make the SEC report public, an effort aided by the Obama administration's push to declassify documents across the spectrum of government affairs. And today, most of the SEC's "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review" was made public.
"We have not developed any evidence that suggests that those who had advance knowledge of the attacks traded on the basis of that information," the SEC said. "In every instance where we noticed unusual trading before the attack, we were able to determine, either through speaking directly with those responsible for the trading, or by reviewing trading records, that the trading was consistent with a legitimate trading strategy."
The SEC said it looked at 9.5 million securities transactions involving 103 companies in six industry groups and trading in seven financial markets.
The inquiry's early focus was on the shares of UAL Corp. and AMR Corp., parent companies of United Airlines and American Airlines, whose planes were guided by terrorists into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, as well as one brought down in a Pennsylvania field after passengers attacked the hijackers aboard.
But the probe quickly widened to financial firms with significant operations in the World Trade Center and insurance companies that faced billions of dollars in losses following the attacks. Securities tied to defense and aerospace companies, security firms and travel and leisure services were examined as well.
Shares in AMR and UAL dropped 40 percent or more after financial markets reopened on Sept. 17, 2001. And the commission's investigators found that short selling -- a means of betting against the companies -- substantially increased for UAL on Sept. 6 and for AMR on Sept. 10 of that year.
Yet interviews with the financial advisers and traders who initiated those transactions found they based their decisions on several bearish factors already affecting the airline industry, including widely distributed recommendations for short selling from a California newsletter called Options Hotline.
- simuvac's blog
- Login to post comments
The last line is the funniest
"Yet interviews with the financial advisers and traders who initiated those transactions found they based their decisions on several bearish factors already affecting the airline industry, including widely distributed recommendations for short selling from a California newsletter called Options Hotline."
That's right: We talked to some traders, and they said they're not guilty.
The partial report
is available here:
http://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/9-11-sec-report.pdf
Glenn Engel
According to page 7, Glenn Engel of Goldman Sachs was the "influential airline industry analyst" who "lowered his earnings estimates for several major airlines."
Is this not a joke, and a very sad one?
Think about how the AOL News guy framed his first paragraph, in light of what he was 'reporting'.
Of course
there is little new news here. The news is simply that a redacted version of the study is now public. The conclusions were already included in the 911 commission report.
My only question is whether the timing of the release has anything to do with the Goldman Sachs investigations?
my comment posted at the nsarchive blog:
http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/document-friday-terrorist-insi...
Unless I missed it (or it's in the blacked out sections), this SEC report doesn't deal with the large increase in purchases of US Treasury bonds shortly before 9/11, "including a single $5 billion trade," as reported by the Wall Street Journal Oct 2, 2001:
Treasury Bonds Enter Purview of U.S. Inquiry Into Attack Gains by Charles Gasparino and Gregory Zuckerman
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=aearly0901treasury#aearly...
"Investigators from the U.S. Secret Service contacted a number of bond traders regarding large purchases of five-year Treasury notes before the attacks, according to people familiar with the probe. The investigators, acting on a tip from traders, are examining whether terrorists, or people affiliated with terrorist organizations, bought five-year notes, including a single $5 billion trade, the people say."
The above article can no longer be found by searching the WSJ website, but it comes up in a Lexis Nexis search.
And unless I missed it, there's no explanation given for the Fed bumping the M1 shortly before 9/11:
June-August 2001: Major Increase in US Currency in Circulation Possibly Indicates Foreknowledge of 9/11 Attacks
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0601currencyincrease#a06...
Read the rest of this timeline re warning signs/foreknowledge/unusual financial transactions and see if you think the SEC report is really telling the whole story:
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelin...
And read the whole timeline to get the most complete version of 9/11- really puts the 9/11 Commission's omissions, distortions and conflicts of interest in context:
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
The SEC let Wall Street loot the US economy during the Bush years, isn't doing anything about Goldman's market-rigging high-frequency trading or any other Goldman economic crimes against humanity, and they made 29 year-old Goldmanite Adam Storch their COO in 2009. Plus there's all the other Goldmanites at Treasury and advising Obama. http://www.goldmansachs666.com/
So we'll see if anything actually comes of this weakly based SEC Goldman suit and the DOJ investigation; after all, GS gave more to Obama than any other candidate, and the DOJ is refusing to enforce Congressional subpoenas (or prosecute torture and warrantless spying), just like it did under Bush. And there never has been a proper investigation of 9/11 either, even as that day has been invoked to justify two illegal wars, the subversion of the Constitution and the institution of a de facto police state in the US.
The Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
Thanks
Thanks for the heads up here, simuvac
This story only makes sense ...
if one assumes that the 9/11 attacks were in fact perpetrated solely by radical Islamic extremists from bin Laden's terror group.
"We have not developed any evidence that suggests that those who had advance knowledge of the attacks traded on the basis of that information," the SEC said. If one accepts the official story, "those who had advance knowledge of the attacks" can only be al qaeda terrorists, and not, for example, Goldman Sachs executives, or "those responsible for the trading", who were simply exercising a "legitimate trading strategy".
On the other hand, if the 9/11 attacks were actually a covert "false flag" operation, sponsored by the "shadow government" or "security state" for geostrategic purposes, it would be reasonable to suspect that leading financial oligarchs "had advance knowledge of the attacks" and "traded on the basis of that information".
John,that is an excellent
John,that is an excellent observation. The SEC assumes it knows who the perpetrators of the attacks are (Islamic terrorists,AQ) Notes that they didn't benefit from the anomalous trades and hence the headline:'SEC finds no sign 911 conspirators bet on attacks' What they failed to note was that the trades themselves and who made them were evidence of foreknowledge and who had it and hence who the perpetrators of the attacks actually were.
This Official Story's Explanation for This Trading Was It For Me
It was the turning point for me. I had just seen a presentation on the buildings and was searching for a competent rebuttal, when I thought ... wait a minute - what ever happened to the options trading investigation?
I have 18 years experience with Securities Litigation on behalf of investors against Wall Street, have participated in SEC insider trading investigations conducted inside WTC7, have been interviewed as an expert consultant on insider trading on local Network affiliates, and when I read the report saying this trading was a coincidence that put me over the edge. I knew immediately then that this was unadulterated bullshit. Not one chance in a 10,000,000 that trading was a coincidence. Though after spending more time on the science of the building collapses - that evidence is stronger, given the immutable laws of physics. But it was the Options trading that first pegged my bullshit meter dead read.
Once again, the Official Story is an absurd joke.
Yes,Topgun,but how many
Yes,Topgun,but how many people are going to learn the,'immutable laws of physics' to see that the collapses are the smoking gun? Not too many I'd say.That's what bothers me about the organized truth movement. It completely ignores everything but CD which always becomes an our expert versus their expert arguement every time. Since they don't want to believe it anyway..our adversaries always win. It's the big picture people.
Well In Terms of Having the Tools For These Battles ...
... I am also blessed with a Degree in Physics and so I am not partial as to which absurdity of the Official Story to attack.
Understand ... a debate over the Insider Trading could also turn into a battle of experts.
I have given a lot of thought about how to fine tune the Debate. I happen to agree with your observation that a narrow focus on controlled demolition is not particularly strong. There is really no need to jump to that conclusion, because it leads to two very difficult questions about (1) how extraordinarily difficult that would be to set up on the inside using many, many people and (2) who would do such a thing?
I think it is better to simply say that (1) the description of the collapse of the buildings is physically impossible and ridiculous and (2) the assertion that the options trading was a coincidence is ridiculous, where there is no serious disagreement among the real experts on these points. Then I simply assert that it's a cover-up (I don't use "inside job" - the cover-up could be to protect embarrassment over involvement of rogue elements of allies and/or agency incompetence - it does not have to be the US as a direct accomplice), and there needs to be a proper investigation. Leaping to accusations against that the "US Government did it" can be way too difficult for many people to swallow at first glance and you lose them.
On the other hand, the people are very accustomed to the notion of a US Government cover-up, which is the only thing we really know for sure. Heck, the Insider Trading cover-up could lead to some well connected Wall Street types with international ties to rogue, wealthy Saudi extremists - lots of people would be okay with that notion. The cover-up may also then give rise to a pretense for War, where the people are also accustomed to lying on that point and are becoming weary of War. The important notion is to give people at least some choices that don't so strongly challenge their world view in the first instance - so that their common sense has a chance to shine through before they shut down.
In that context, one can also make very good use and reference to the Anthrax investigation and how Science excluded the seemingly obvious suspects and that you only find the correct answer from a proper investigation. I then suggest that there is a cover-up there as well, which the science experts are now agreeing upon - where the notion that one guy did this and then suicided himself with Tylenol and Codeine is extremely far-fetched.
'nuff said
'Not one chance in a 10,000,000 that trading was a coincidence.'
'nuff said.
We need more from you and those like you.
Thanks for the taste of what you can give us.
We need more from you and those like you.
I have very little knowledge of how the SEC works and what all of this means, and I can be easily swayed with BS. I read the aol article and figured, oh shit, all the worry about insider trading was wrong.
I'd love to see a whole book dedicated to everything we know about the insider trading that day and before and after, with lots of explanations about how the stock market works, how people scheme, how they get caught, etc etc.
Somebody needs to really do a thorough job that will explain this to people with brains that are numb to the world of stock trading, like me.
I eat up the science about controlled demolition. And all of that has been spelled out so well by a few truthers, like Kevin Ryan and Richard Gage and Professor Jones and others. We need the same kind of analysis, from basics on up, about the insider trading.
To Do a Proper Insider Trading Investigation -
The SEC gets phone records and email records and looks for common associations among those who made the trades and ALSO, of course, you follow the Money. The people or accounts making the trades can be fronts for others.
Now the tricky thing here is that you are often able to start with who was likely to have knowledge of the attacks. If you are trading on inside knowledge of Corporate merger or Government Regulatory announcement (e.g. Martha Stewart case/ Trading Places movie/ Wall Street movie), you can start with compiling lists of who would have had access to the information - like Corporate insiders, attorneys, government regulators. Then you look for connections between the traders and the people with the information.
That's where this investigation is more difficult if you start with the assumption that Al Qaeda did this as a solo act. So when you find no communication or money connections to Al Qaeda you say "Oh Well." It's kinda like NIST not looking for explosives because it has already concluded they are not there. But it is more difficult here. The investigators would have to take an unusually broad view of the potential culprits, but that was certainly justified given the enormity of the Crime. Also, to do this right, you would need to coordinate it with other competent investigative evidence. For example, if the trading trails overlapped with individuals who were connected to the buildings or who profited in a more general sense from the attacks - you would have to pursue those connections. The key thing for an Insider Trading investigation is that you only need one person to crack. The government is very good at that when it wants to be. You lean heavily on one relatively small fish and they give up the bigger fish, who is otherwise pretty well insulated, and you work upwards. This was portrayed in the Movie "Wall Street," where they got Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) to wear a wire to nail Grecko (Michael Douglas).
Any sincere investigation could crack this thing open easily. One thing the MSM has right is that there are so many players involved - but people do not roll over themselves. Whether its mobsters or insider traders or the people involved with 9/11, they don't just walk into the FBI or SEC and say "Hey, since you guys are not doing your jobs - I thought I'd stroll by, help you out and turn myself in." I mean .... DUH!
You cannot be affirmatively incompetent - like the SEC was with Madoff - simply because you find yourself investigating a person with lots of connections and influence. No doubt the insider traders on 9/11 were very well connected with very important people and institutions.
Blog about insider trading evidence?
Thank you for your insights.
A European (German?) economics professor analyzed the pre-9/11 trading and concluded in a study that insider trading had indeed taken place. Don't remember his name, though.
It would be very helpful if you had the time to sum up the grounds of your conviction about insider trading in a blog.
"The insider traders on 9/11 were very well connected"
TopGun,
Perhaps you can answer a basic question that has always plagued me about this aspect of 9/11:
When I make my own puny trades on ETrade, the record of a financial transaction gets created with my name (as the buyer or seller) permanently linked to the activity. Detailed statements arrive at my home, these transactions are crystalized into the digital ether and reported to the federal governemnt so I can pay taxes.
So why is it not such a simple matter to just look at these put options to see who placed them, and then ask them directly about these transactions? Why is it so hard to follow this money? Did they pay taxes on their big win?
In the same way what that NYCCAN recently asked "Building What?" to raise awareness of THAT smoking gun, couldn't the Truth movement create a campaign to ask "What Put Options?" to raise the awareness of THIS smoking gun? Again, so many people I talk to are unaware of this fact, and it is a verifiable fact, is it not?
Time for Stockbrokers for 9/11 Truth to blow the lid off this ...
They Presumably Did Ask Those Questions
"So why is it not such a simple matter to just look at these put options to see who placed them, and then ask them directly about these transactions?"
Nobody is going to just admit to this. You just come up with some lame excuse as to how you were so lucky or so skillful. And if the SEC says "okay" -- you're done. Madoff got away with this for years. It was mathematically impossible that his success was real - and that was handed to the SEC on a silver platter, but he was an untouchable.
Also, you're describing what happens in an individual's account. You can have corporate or institutional accounts, holding companies, dummy accounts etc. --- that's the follow the money end of it.
SEC under a $3.87 Trillion Lawsuit
Though the lawsuit filed against Goldman Sachs is all over the place, few seem aware of this unprecedented lawsuit filed against the SEC.
Text: http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/paKdda
And note this article by Cris Story of World Reports:
CMKM/CMKX $3.87 TRILLION LAWSUIT GOES 'MAINSTREAM'
Which means that the SEC is part of the greater scam behind the attacks against the US and world financial systems. Maybe going after Goldman Sachs, they figure they could divert attention from their cover-up efforts.
More resources on this at: www.FlybyNews.com
Again, this stuff needs to be explained..........
.............to people like me who do not understand any of that.
I sense this is really important to our cause, but has been lost over time because it has never been explained well for the majority of people who don't understand the financial world.
I'll Sum It Up
They're all a bunch of Crooks - the whole lot of them.
Yes PF - the Financial Side of this is fundamental. Watch this Movie Clip. It pretty much sums up how things work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqEcLlp_Big&feature=related
Allen Poteshman
It should be noted that finance professor Allen Poteshman already published a peer-reviewed academic study that concluded there was insider knowledge of the attacks involved in pre-9/11 put option trading. The final version of that paper appears in the Journal of Business in 2006.
Also, some interesting reading is available at the 9/11 Timeline:
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelin...
Fascinating, informative discussion
Thanks guys. As Yogi Berra said, "You can observe a lot just by watching."
I disagree that there is too much emphasis in the Truth movement on CD. This is the one area that is, I believe, most accessible to the lay person, one that has both visible and intellectual components: You can see it! Plus the myriad reports of explosions make it indisputable. As far as "their experts vs. ours" as waitew said, I don't know of any experts outside of those with connections to the government that support the official theory regarding the collapses. Has any expert dispute the existence of active nano-thermite found in the remains of the collapses?
I agree that when "experts" do clash on any topic there is rarely, if ever, a consensus reached. But there has been no clash of independent, unbiased, experts on CD.
Which brings me to my main point: the time for argument is over. Long over.
It is time for arrests and trials.
Pressure needs to be brought to bear on agencies of justice (and the damned MSM) using the facts we already have to do what this mountain of evidence demand they ought to do.
Again, thank you all for a wonderful thread.
Any admission of bets "above
Any admission of bets "above the statistical norm" would have very likely implicated non-Muslim parties in "accessory before the fact" to mass murder etc etc etc. This, in the US' climate of pointing the finger at those widely hated by the DC powers-that-be (Arabs and Muslims), would be the ultimate NO NO.
The guilty parties closed ranks to protect each other, with the SEC 100% complicit. It seems as if whenever this country initiates an investigation into a major event with political ramifications, the conclusion can be printed up even before the committee members are selected, before even a softball question is asked.
We must not tarnish the image!
Thank you everyone for your comments.
I love waking up and reading intelligent posts on 911Blogger. Keep fighting for Truth. Don't get discouraged. If we give up, they win. I'm doing my best to speak Truth here in Eugene, Oregon. RATM.
CIA agent knows who made money from Airline stock on 9/10/2001
Fast forward to 9:45 of the video
Baer Also Announced UBL Was DEAD!
Baer Also Announced UBL Was DEAD!
WHO made the most $$ on the insider
bets?
So the SEC..
who couldn't see the massive fraud being conducted under their very noses by virtually every bank and brokerage on Wall St in the mortage market and its impeding collapse, also could not find any evidence that the strange short selling just before 9/11 wasn't based on prior knowledge. It stretches credibility. Who headed up the investigation? Christopher "look the other way" Cox? I am not impressed.
peace all
dtg
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”
–William Colby, former CIA Director, quoted by David McGowan, “Derailing Democracy” (2000)
So the SEC..
who couldn't see the massive fraud being conducted under their very noses by virtually every bank and brokerage on Wall St in the mortage market and its impeding collapse, also could not find any evidence that the strange short selling just before 9/11 wasn't based on prior knowledge. It stretches credibility. Who headed up the investigation? Christopher "look the other way" Cox? I am not impressed.
peace all
dtg
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”
–William Colby, former CIA Director, quoted by David McGowan, “Derailing Democracy” (2000)
"Yet interviews with the
"Yet interviews with the financial advisers and traders who initiated those transactions found they based their decisions on several bearish factors already affecting the airline industry, including widely distributed recommendations for short selling from a California newsletter called Options Hotline"
Right. So we are to believe an obscure newsletter and a few traders rather than Allen Poteshman who developed an ultra sophisticated program for analyzing trades, that can detect inside trades that the SEC uses?
Paul Zarembka has an excellent chapter on these so called "put options" on American and United in his book, "The Hidden History of 9-11"- Chapter 3 "Insider Trading"
A.B. Krongard one of the infamous Krongard brothers and former executive director of the CIA, was connected to these trades by way of investment bank Alex Brown-Banker's Trust Alex Brown- Deutshe Bank.
Someone is still frightened of uncovering the real traders' identity. Notice the news statement refers to trades by saying the SEC,
"found no evidence that the conspirators behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks made financial bets against the airlines or other companies hurt by the terrorist assault", implying OBL or his ilk. It's in the words.
I still believe it was red herring
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=982&hl=
but it's clear INSIDER Trading without the premise al qaida!
Strange Convoluted Sentence
"We have not developed any evidence that suggests that those who had advance knowledge of the attacks traded on the basis of that information," the SEC said.
A straight forward sentence would read: "We have no evidence that trades were based on advance knowledge".
Instead their wording constructs a false narrative involving "those who had advance knowledge" and the traders. What the sentence leaves open is that the "traders" knew something would happen, just not the exact nature of what that would be.
Dots unconnected
In other words the "investigators" went out of their way not to connect any dots.