Disco08 said:
If they prosecute someone else with implications of prior knowledge that opens a massive can of worms.
You're right. It shouldn't be hard to trace the source of any of the anomalous trading associated with 9/11. That's why people are critical that it only appeared as a utterly under investigated dismissive footnote in the 9/11 commission report.
I don't know how often AA and UAL had similar discrepancies but I'll bet September 10 was coincidentally one of the biggest.
Not sure what your problem with Ruppert is. He's just explaining a decision he has experience in.
What about this from the report Disco? What do you make of these explanations below?
Another good example concerns a suspicious UAL put trade on September 7, 2001. A single trader bought more than one-third of the total puts purchased that day, establishing a position that proved very profitable after 9/11. Moreover, it turns out that the same trader had a short position in UAL calls—another strategy that would pay off if the price of UAL dropped. Investigation, however, identified the purchaser as a well-established New York hedge fund with $2 billion under management. Setting aside the unlikelihood of al Qaeda having a relationship with a major New York hedge fund, these trades looked facially suspicious. But further examination showed the fund also owned 29,000 shares of UAL stock at the time—all part of a complex, computer-driven trading strategy. As a result of these transactions, the fund actually lost $85,000 in value when the market reopened. Had the hedge fund wanted to profit from the attacks, it would not have retained the UAL shares.
The options trading in UAL and AMR was typical of the entire investigation. In all sectors and companies whose trades looked suspicious because of their timing and profitability, including short selling of UAL, AMR, and other airline stocks, close scrutiny revealed absolutely no evidence of foreknowledge. The pattern is repeated over and over. For example, the FBI investigated a trader who bought a substantial position in put options in AIG Insurance Co. shortly before 9/11. Viewed in isolation, the trade looked highly suspicious, especially when AIG stock plummeted after 9/11. The FBI found that the trade had been made by a fund manager to hedge a long position of 4.2 million shares in the AIG common stock. The fund manager owned a significant amount of AIG stock, but the fund had a very low tax basis in the stock (that is, it had been bought long ago and had appreciated significantly over time). Selling even some of it would have created a massive tax liability. Thus, the fund manager chose to hedge his position through a put option purchase. After 9/11, the fund profited substantially from its investment in puts. At the same time, however, it suffered a substantial loss on the common stock, and overall lost money as a result of the attacks.
So the funds actually lose money overall as result of the attacks. Great management hey? If they knew about the attacks why wasn't there more selling of the actual stocks done?
And what about this mysterious unclaimed profit that floats around the truther sites -
These examples were typical. The SEC and the FBI investigated all of the put option purchases in UAL and AMR, drawing on multiple and redundant sources of information to ensure complete coverage. All profitable option trading was investigated and resolved. There was no evidence of illicit trading and no unexplained or mysterious trading. Moreover, there was no evidence that profits from any profitable options trading went uncollected.171
How do you substantiate your claim it was utterly underinvestigated without providing any actual evidence to back up your claim. And I don't think any truther site has actually shown irrefutable documented evidence to substantiate any of their claims - demolished buildings, shot down planes, missiles, insider trading, prior knowledge of the exact details of the attack..the list goes on.
