Posts
Foreign Policy Journal
Monday, January 03, 2011
Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11
by Kevin Ryan
November 18, 2010
Just after September 11th 2001, many governments began investigations into
possible insider trading related to the terrorist attacks of that day. Such
investigations were initiated by the governments of Belgium, Cyprus, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Monte Carlo, the Netherlands, Switzerland,
the United States, and others. Although the investigators were clearly
concerned about insider trading, and considerable evidence did exist, none of
the investigations resulted in a single indictment. That’s because the people
identified as having been involved in the suspicious trades were seen as
unlikely to have been associated with those alleged to have committed the 9/11
crimes.
This is an example of the circular logic often used by those who created the
official explanations for 9/11. The reasoning goes like this: if we assume that
we know who the perpetrators were (i.e. the popular version of “al Qaeda”) and
those who were involved in the trades did not appear to be connected to those
assumed perpetrators, then insider trading did not occur.
That’s basically what the 9/11 Commission told us. The Commission concluded
that “exhaustive investigations” by the SEC and the FBI “uncovered no evidence
that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities
transactions.” What they meant was that someone did profit through securities
transactions but, based on the Commission’s assumptions of guilt, those who
profited were not associated with those who were guilty of conducting the
attacks. In a footnote, the Commission report acknowledged “highly suspicious
trading on its face,” but said that this trading on United Airlines was traced
back to “A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to
al Qaeda.”[1]
With respect to insider trading, or what is more technically called informed
trading, the Commission report was itself suspect for several reasons. First,
the informed trades relating to 9/11 covered far more than just airline company
stock. The stocks of financial and reinsurance companies, as well as other
financial vehicles, were identified as being associated with suspicious trades.
Huge credit card transactions, completed just before the attacks, were also
involved. The Commission ultimately tried to frame all of this highly
suspicious trading in terms of a series of misunderstandings. However, the
possibility that so many leading financial experts were so completely wrong is
doubtful at best and, if true, would constitute another unbelievable scenario in
the already highly improbable sequence of events represented by the official
story of 9/11.
In the last few years, new evidence has come to light on these matters. In 2006
and 2010, financial experts at a number of universities have established new
evidence, through statistical analyses, that informed trades did occur with
respect to the 9/11 attacks. Additionally, in 2007, the 911 Commission released
a memorandum summary of the FBI investigations on which its report was based.[2]
A careful review of this memorandum indicates that some of the people who were
briefly investigated by the FBI, and then acquitted without due diligence, had
links to al Qaeda and to US intelligence agencies. Although the elapsed time
between the informed trades and these new confirmations might prevent legal
action against the guilty, the facts of the matter can help lead us to the truth
about 9/11. Much more at:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/11/18/evidence-for-informed-trading-on-the-attacks-of-september-11/all/1
No comments:
Post a Comment