|
Post by echnaton on Jul 8, 2005 11:00:48 GMT -4
How do you know? What about violations of disclosure in other fields? They do exist, so just to say "oh, please" is not showing me they couldn't exist. Or some variation of same. Saying, “Oh, please,” is an expression of dismay at the desperation shown in your statement. You postulate a grand conspiracy going back many years, provide not one piece of evidence, then ask others to prove it isn’t true. One cannot answer this type of statement because no matter where the discussion may go there will always be an ad hoc conspiracy to justify any speculation.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 8, 2005 11:05:46 GMT -4
No employees of the company I was discussing ever came forward about the deaths that were occurring as a result of the defective product. But we are not talking about a defective product, we're talking about people who supposedly witnessed the placement of bombs in the WTC that lead to mass murder. NDA's are not licences to commit crimes, if someone witnessed the placement of bombs they were legally and morally required to report it to the authorities. The necessity to prevent the murder and destruction took precedence over an NDA. Any retribution that would fall on the whistle blower (ie. losing their job) would only result in a lawsuit. NDA or not, a company can't fire someone because they reported a crime.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 8, 2005 12:30:25 GMT -4
It really is ludicrous to suppose that explosives were installed in the WTC during its construction.
Especially in light of the fact that one of the WTC buildings was bombed in the 1990s requiring rebuilding and structural analysis.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jul 8, 2005 13:28:47 GMT -4
It really is ludicrous to suppose that explosives were installed in the WTC during its construction.Especially in light of the fact that one of the WTC buildings was bombed in the 1990s requiring rebuilding and structural analysis. I hope you realize that the answer to that will be that they bombed it on purpose that day because they needed to get in that building and re-wire some of the original 1973 explosives that had shorted out. The conspiracy can morph in any direction like cutting off a Hydra's head; it's fruitless to try to pin the CTs down on anything.
|
|
|
Post by Bbabu on Jul 8, 2005 13:38:52 GMT -4
Especially in light of the fact that one of the WTC buildings was bombed in the 1990s requiring rebuilding and structural analysis. Oh no... more grist for the CTs. I can just see the wheels spinning now... "Yeah, they must have planted the explosives then."
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jul 8, 2005 18:29:39 GMT -4
Side note or not , that is irellevant to this discussion. Stating that there are other grand conspiracies that have been perpetrated in the pasteven IF they could be proven) simply does not have any bearing whatsoever on this event, 9/11. None of the people involved are the same, none of the politics are the same and the world is not the same. Copping out, jaydees!! Why not answer? A quick yes or no takes far less time than what you wrote here....... and there's been multiple "side talks" on this and most other forums, so what's the big deal? Guess I'll have to start a new topic......... I do not offer a yes or no BECAUSE it is irellevant to this topic and it matters not to me that on other forums there have been forays and digressions into subjects that bear only the tiniest bit of connection to anything related to 9/11. If it isn't relevant, it isn't relevant and need not be discussed IMHO and I refuse to be drawn away from the topic at hand. I see you did start another thread.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 9, 2005 21:30:32 GMT -4
It really is ludicrous to suppose that explosives were installed in the WTC during its construction.Especially in light of the fact that one of the WTC buildings was bombed in the 1990s requiring rebuilding and structural analysis. I hope you realize that the answer to that will be that they bombed it on purpose that day because they needed to get in that building and re-wire some of the original 1973 explosives that had shorted out. The conspiracy can morph in any direction like cutting off a Hydra's head; it's fruitless to try to pin the CTs down on anything. twinstead, where have you been? Your posts are gathering mold on UM!!
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 9, 2005 22:13:36 GMT -4
No employees of the company I was discussing ever came forward about the deaths that were occurring as a result of the defective product. But we are not talking about a defective product, we're talking about people who supposedly witnessed the placement of bombs in the WTC that lead to mass murder. NDA's are not licences to commit crimes, if someone witnessed the placement of bombs they were legally and morally required to report it to the authorities. The necessity to prevent the murder and destruction took precedence over an NDA. Any retribution that would fall on the whistle blower (ie. losing their job) would only result in a lawsuit. NDA or not, a company can't fire someone because they reported a crime. LunarOrbit, the defective product led to mass murders, and these people were aware of this. They too could be considered legally and morally obligated to report this to the authorities. The NDA's were not taking precedence over this neccessity, but in the real world things don't always unfold the way they should. The people I spoke with from this company were afraid of the consequences of speaking out because they were not certain they could prove that all of this was done 1. "with deliberate intent " by 2. "precisely identified top management" who were 3.. "fully aware that the consequences of their actions and inactions would lead to the death of their customers" and yet 4. "knowingly continued to sell the product". The gathering of all the necessary information to feel confident in coming forward with the accusations had the NDA acting as a deterrent in this. Without sharing of information even between departments within the company (there was one blanket company NDA, and there were additional NDA''s specifically for individual or new product developments, R&D, etc.) .The NDA also was a deterrent in the previously explained role of heavy penalties for disclosure violations of proprietary information - IF there is insufficient evidence of criminal activity. My background is the high-tech medical device industry, which is very heavily regulated, very competitive, and very discrete and secretive in flow of information. Again, I'm not suggesting this is what was done with the WTC, so I wish some people here would stop taking it as if I said it was the method implemented. I pointed it out as an example to show that things like this CAN be kept quiet. That was my only point in this issue. But I also have a point to address in my next post regarding explosives installed at the time of construction....
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 9, 2005 22:26:10 GMT -4
Turbo, First of all put options are not shares in anything and do not represent ownership of any asset other than the option, they are contracts between counter parties that rely on the credit of the counter parties to pay off. They do not trade on stock exchanges. Secondly, and rather nitpicking, is that you cannot own share in or trade options on United Airlines, because it is a wholly owned subsidiary of anther company, specifically UAL Corp. The latter company is publicly traded under the ticker UAL. There was indeed for foreknowledge of the attacks by people with enough financial understanding to know to use put options. Whether or not the alleged contract trading took place, your guilt by association tactic to slander people, is somewhat less than persuasive. Your source, The American Free Press is a conspiracy mongering organization, not legitimate source of information. From their About Us web page. To consolidate their influence, the Masters of the Media and their international corporate allies reward obedient journalists with membership in the Council on Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Com mission where they rub shoulders with others in the international policy-making networks. A handful get promoted to the higher ranks of the secret Bilderberg Group. One can’t really argue with these folks because of the unshakable belief that there is a hidden conspiracy behind nearly everything. It’s like reasoning a four year old out of the existence of Santa Clause on Christmas Eve. They believe it because they think that if they don’t believe then they won’t get any presents. MY guilt by association tactic? Ok - what about AP, Bloomberg Financial News, CBS News, San Francisco Chronicle, The Independent, Newsday, Reuters and the Chicago Sun-Times? This link has all their articles about suspicious trade volume spikes just prior to 9/11... www.yirmeyahureview.com/archive/911/insider_trading.htm#Judy%20Mathewson%20and%20Michael%20Nol,%20%93U.S.,%20Germany,%20Japan%20Investigate%20Unusual%20Trading%20Before%20Attack%94%20Bloomberg%20Financial%20News,%20September%2018,%202001
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jul 10, 2005 14:24:20 GMT -4
I hope you realize that the answer to that will be that they bombed it on purpose that day because they needed to get in that building and re-wire some of the original 1973 explosives that had shorted out. The conspiracy can morph in any direction like cutting off a Hydra's head; it's fruitless to try to pin the CTs down on anything. twinstead, where have you been? Your posts are gathering mold on UM!! LOL I know, I liked that forum. Was away for a while with no net access, and haven't been there for a bit. I''m glad to see you've branched out. I always said if you can't defend your theories you have no business having them. I must add that I have some new respect for you coming to this one to debate; there are some pretty smart folks on this board, and you have your work cut out for you.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 11, 2005 12:36:40 GMT -4
What exactly makes these transactions "unusual" or "suspicious"?
This is what we call the "focus bias" in investigation. You begin to see "correlations" in things because you look at them more closely in one instance than you do in the others. Given the sheer volume of stock trading that goes on daily, it is not suprising that you can find stock trading patterns that seem "suspicious" in light of some preseleted criteria. You have to look at the allegedly anomalous patterns in light of all trading, and in light of prior and subsequent trading. Stock trading analysis is a very complicated, largely nondeterministic pursuit.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jul 11, 2005 12:54:25 GMT -4
What exactly makes these transactions "unusual" or "suspicious"? This is what we call the "focus bias" in investigation. You begin to see "correlations" in things because you look at them more closely in one instance than you do in the others. Given the sheer volume of stock trading that goes on daily, it is not suprising that you can find stock trading patterns that seem "suspicious" in light of some preseleted criteria. You have to look at the allegedly anomalous patterns in light of all trading, and in light of prior and subsequent trading. Stock trading analysis is a very complicated, largely nondeterministic pursuit. I read one report which claimed to find suspicious patterns in the week before the attacks. It had a serious selection bias. It studied approximately 20 stocks for suspicious activity, and then applied a statistical test with 95% confidence and found suspicious activity in these stocks. The problem is, the stocks were selected from S&P 500 by another study for suspicious activity, using a 95% condifence test already. With this confidence, there should be 25 stocks found with suspicious activity even if the truth is that there is no suspicious trading. So level of suspicous activity was lower than what is expected by random chance. But people say some times, "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack." It is possible for there to be suspicious trading, this means only the study I read did not find it if it exists. I do not know if I can still find this report... Martin
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 11, 2005 15:19:30 GMT -4
Turbo, First of all put options are not shares in anything and do not represent ownership of any asset other than the option, they are contracts between counter parties that rely on the credit of the counter parties to pay off. They do not trade on stock exchanges. Secondly, and rather nitpicking, is that you cannot own share in or trade options on United Airlines, because it is a wholly owned subsidiary of anther company, specifically UAL Corp. The latter company is publicly traded under the ticker UAL. There was indeed for foreknowledge of the attacks by people with enough financial understanding to know to use put options. Whether or not the alleged contract trading took place, your guilt by association tactic to slander people, is somewhat less than persuasive. Your source, The American Free Press is a conspiracy mongering organization, not legitimate source of information. From their About Us web page. One can’t really argue with these folks because of the unshakable belief that there is a hidden conspiracy behind nearly everything. It’s like reasoning a four year old out of the existence of Santa Clause on Christmas Eve. They believe it because they think that if they don’t believe then they won’t get any presents. MY guilt by association tactic? Ok - what about AP, Bloomberg Financial News, CBS News, San Francisco Chronicle, The Independent, Newsday, Reuters and the Chicago Sun-Times? This link has all their articles about suspicious trade volume spikes just prior to 9/11... www.yirmeyahureview.com/archive/911/insider_trading.htm#Judy%20Mathewson%20and%20Michael%20Nol,%20%93U.S.,%20Germany,%20Japan%20Investigate%20Unusual%20Trading%20Before%20Attack%94%20Bloomberg%20Financial%20News,%20September%2018,%202001 As I said earlier, there was some foreknowledge of an attack. As others have pointed out, any trading activity may or may not have been suspicious, and any one test that points out trade patters in certain markets as suspicious only means that the model could not account for the activity based on analysis of past data, not that any specific trade was in fact motivated by foreknowledge of a significant event. I was specifically refereeing to your tainting Krongard, do to his former affiliation with a subsidiary of Deustche Bank, where you claimed that suspicious activity occurred. Even if trades did occur you have not shown who the beneficiaries of the alleged trades were. You have only associated Krongard with what you call suspicious behavior because of this old employment affiliation with no basis of fact from on his actions before 9/11. This is guilt by association and very contemptible.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 12, 2005 22:48:31 GMT -4
What exactly makes these transactions "unusual" or "suspicious"? This is what we call the "focus bias" in investigation. You begin to see "correlations" in things because you look at them more closely in one instance than you do in the others. Given the sheer volume of stock trading that goes on daily, it is not suprising that you can find stock trading patterns that seem "suspicious" in light of some preseleted criteria. You have to look at the allegedly anomalous patterns in light of all trading, and in light of prior and subsequent trading. Stock trading analysis is a very complicated, largely nondeterministic pursuit. Jay, these anomalies meet all the criteria required to merit investigation. - Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million. - On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance; Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent "insiders", they would represent a gain of about $4 million. - [The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.]
- No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.- Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley's share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million. - Merrill Lynch & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day . When trading resumed, Merrill's shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by "insiders", their profit would have been about $5.5 million.
- European regulators are examining trades in Germany's Munich Re, Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. [FTW Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock making the attacks a "double whammy" for them.]
On September 29, 2001 - in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the major media - the San Francisco Chronicle reported, "Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data".
"The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors - whose identities and nationalities have not been made public - had advance knowledge of the strikes". They don't dare show up now. The suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking.
"October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000 shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called "put" options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp".
"The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of these options" This was the operation managed by Krongard until as recently as 1998.
As reported in other news stories, Deutsche Bank was also the hub of insider trading activity connected to Munich Re. just before the attacks.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 12, 2005 23:05:12 GMT -4
Krongard, as noted in the links I provided, has a lot he should answer for, that has not even been mildly probed regarding CIA and Promis, and links to AB. That is not an association I have made, that has been made from the reports that question the fishy links between him and these entities. They require investigation based on this, and if he were found to not be involved, the reports would be on the public record for vindication against these allegations.
Until, or if, it is ever uncovered as to who was involved in these deals, allegations will continue to exist. If he has nothing to hide, why hasn't he challenged his accusers or filed suit against them? Maybe because it would open a can of worms best left closed? If not, what other reason could there be?
|
|