Jim Rickards/Max Keiser discuss 9/11 Insider Trading
In this episode of Max Keiser's show Kesier Report, Jim Rickards confirms that insider trading of airline stocks was taking place. To his discredit he distances himself from accusing any governmental involvement I understand he feels he must take that stance in order to maintain his "status". I don't have a problem with this per se, but he uses statements like "individual trading at Alex Brown is irrelevant" but in the same breath, describes how tracing down the initial transactions are crucial to determining those involved. Really? I wonder how many muslim terrorists Mr. Rickards thinks own airline stocks if any stocks at all? Does he think they logged into their E-trade account from Afghanistan? Did KSM have a trading account? What if the initial transactions were started at Alex Brown? HMaking a statement such as this, IMHO, is equivalent to the 9/11 Commission's statement that the financing of the attacks is of "little practical significance."
To Max's credit he stuck to the connections between Buzzy Krongard, Alex Brown, and his CIA connections. This is two part interview and the second part has not posted yet. Will post it here when it becomes available.
peace everyone
dtg
"Truth is the hardest pill to swallow"
- dtg86's blog
- Login to post comments
In the houses of BS.
What are the options on it being a narrative set up to append the commission report dodge by introducing 'the piggyback', whereby Buzzy, being a good-guy' trader just happened to notice the 'small original terrorist trade' and - being the genius he obviously is, threw the entire AB at it thus amplifying the signal and creating the spike that later alerted inside trade.
The source of which the commission also found irrelevant.
Plausible? Ten to one the author had some long and very relevant conversations at Langley discussing just how "irrelevant" the "whole AB thing" was going to be.i guess it just allows for that close 'intuition' between terrorism, Wall Street, and CIA where nothing ever gets proved. Not even a bullet in the face.
More on the way...
I think we'll continue to see more of these fallback positions proliferate as the community unravels the official narrative.
Jim Rickard's is a smart guy who knows finance, so for him to blanket disassociate himself from the hard evidence we've compiled and simply dismiss it as "looney" is a real 'tell'. We have the initiative (we're forcing the action) and they know it.
Part II
Not too much here in the way of 9/11 but interesting nonetheless