Support 911Blogger


Re: Deutsche Bank Alex Brown and 9/11 Insider Trading

"I had the feeling that there was one final thing left for me to do regarding my research of informed trading activities in connection to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 in order to close that chapter of my journalistic work once and for all. And so I went back to the 9/11 stories involving Deutsche Bank Alex Brown. I considered it a journalistic obligation to exercise diligence.

With regard to the research that I’ve done on the topic of “9/11 Insider Trading” there was one thing that I hadn’t gone after sufficiently enough: so far I had not asked the German Bank for a statement on two particular issues. I also noticed that no one else had asked the Deutsche Bank for it – at least I could not find anything that suggested otherwise.

What those two issues were should become evident if I just cite some various e-mails. Moreover, they will give you all relevant links/sources to follow up on the whole story if you want to. I am aware that the format is a bit unusual and a bit hard to follow, but I am confident that you will understand it in the end".

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/02/23/re-deutsche-bank-alex-brown-and-911-insider-trading/

Excellent work

Very good article Lars, thank you for pursuing this to your utmost. It is dispiriting to see the usual boilerplate 'don't ask us/we don't know/it didn't happen' dismissals of evidence with bank authorities and journalists (not you but the one in the UK you contacted) scurrying away from the obvious.

I read Ruppert's CROSSING THE RUBICON years ago and this seems to be yet another assertion from that book of which Ruppert and only Ruppert has the evidence for. Of course, the practical difference between a fact given to Ruppert by an unnamed, forever anonymous whistleblower with no additional supporting information, and a fact conjured up by Ruppert out of thin air, is very little. I'm not suggesting that Ruppert made the info up, just acknowledging he may as well have for all the good it does anyone. I also find Ruppert's assertion of nearly a dozen documented PROMIS deaths annoying - which ones are they Mike, or should we just have a guess? I'll grant him Danny Casolaro, sure. Then who after that? Ruppert doesn't say. I read a lot of documentation about Promis and Inslaw and the Bua rebuttal and Casolaro etc etc prior to 9/11, when the Casolaro Octopus was a hot topic (now supplanted by more recent conspiratorial crimes). Ruppert could have done everyone a favour by giving some names to his assertion, even if just as a reminder of past events, but that would have made things too clear, and god knows we don't want that to happen.

All that said I've read all the main 9/11 books and have followed the general thrust of pretty much every debate that has appeared here at 911Blogger and via all the other usual outlets, and I've never made head or tails of what the key role of Promis in 9/11 was intended to be, nor what the main evidence for its use on the day is.

Thank you again Lars for your hard work with this.

Speaking of the devil (just a phrase as your work here is all good), here's a conversation between Lars and Max Keiser -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to7IZQyE27Q

and a darkly funny comment by Max on the whole thing. I know how he feels somedays.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AT5zzFT7sc