web analytics

A FINANCIAL DEADLY ECHO?

By ATWadmin On September 5th, 2007

Here’s a worrying story.

In the weeks preceding the 2001 attacks on America, there were very significant financial warning signs that something big – and bad – could be about to happen. Huge surges in purchases of “put options” on stocks of United Airlines and American Airlines, the two airlines used in the attacks, and “put options” on Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley, stocks of two financial services companies hurt by the attack were noted. Put options are essentially “bets” that a stock or stock index will drop on or before a certain date; the larger the drop, the bigger the gain for the purchaser of the option.

Fast forward to the present day, and we have the same type of trading that took place in the days that preceded the 9/11 attacks – but on a larger scale. Nearly $1 billion of “put options” have been purchased, basically betting that Standard and Poor’s 500 index will fall significantly by the third Friday in September. A large number of these options have also been purchased calling for 50% decline by September 21, 2007.

So, does someone know something that we don’t?

50 Responses to “A FINANCIAL DEADLY ECHO?”

  1. Let’s hope that the only thing burnt are the fingers of those speculators.

    If there is proof that those speculating on a fall in the markets had prior knowledge of the events of 11/9/2007 then at lewast one crime was committed.

    Or is this whole story speculation too?

  2. ‘Or is this whole story speculation too?’

    Speculation On Speculation! Which can be abbreviated to SOS. Which is a similar term for 911! AGGGGHHHH!!!!

  3. I heard this also. The sums involved are vast (billions), this is probably some hedge fund or a nick leeson type trying to dig itself out of trouble.

    Really it is very difficult to imagine this having a positive outcome no matter how you look at it.

  4. Isn’t the purchase of ‘puts’ a leveraged option? whereby you buy 1 billion worth of ‘puts’. for say 2% of their value, and only make a profit if the event (i.e the loss), actually happens. The more unlikely the event will happen, the cheaper the ‘puts’ are to buy.

    So maybe it is just a punt, as Frank says, by some desperate hedge fund manager. If it should happen, then he will be hailed as a ‘genius’, if it fails, well it is only investors money…

  5. Shame the FBI never bothered to investigate who was behind the 9-11 trading – or rather backed off investigating. Strange that.

  6. The lack of context in the story is suspicious. How many other billions worth of "put" options on companies unaffected by 9/11 were gambled in the weeks prior to 9/11 and how many weeks are they talking about?

  7. According to snopes, the story of massive put options on airline stocks pre 9/11 is just not true.

    snopes.

    Strange that the FBI never bothered, RC? Or strange that you’re seeing something here that isn’t?

  8. probably more to do with credit crunch theories.
    If i was a hard-core jihadi i would have thought you would want to tightly restrict the information of a fortcomign attack.

    Come to think of it, didnt the latest james bond film revolve around the baddie putting put options on air company before he tried to blow it up?

  9. Monica happens to be right on this (my keyboard melts).

  10. "Strange that the FBI never bothered, RC? Or strange that you’re seeing something here that isn’t?"

    my lying eyes, huh? I guess if you’ll swallow a plane slamming into the Pentagon (aka the most heavily defended building in the world) one hour after the whole world knew America was under attack, etc etc down the line of smoking guns, you’ll swallow anything, so don’t let me disturb your sleep.

  11. Crazy conspiracy theories abound, but the simple fact is a bunch of criminals, blinded against human decency by radical Islamic demagogues, succeeded against the odds in taking four planes and committing suicide and mass murder.

  12. Sure – like that’s not a crazy conspiracy theory itself – and don’t forget – it’s unpatriotic to question your loving government.

  13. RC -it has the simple benefit of being the facts. So much easier. As for patriotism, I’ve always beleived questioning the state is one of the signs of a true patriot.

  14. "I guess if you’ll swallow a plane slamming into the Pentagon (aka the most heavily defended building in the world) one hour after the whole world knew America was under attack, etc etc down the line of smoking guns, you’ll swallow anything, so don’t let me disturb your sleep."

    Good man, RC. I suppose it was a Mossad-fired missile. And JFK was killed by the FBI.

    "it’s unpatriotic to question your loving government."

    On the contrary, it’s perfectly reasonable to question the incompetent intelligence agencies of the US Government.

  15. RC: "it’s unpatriotic to question your loving government."

    Whoever said that it was unpatriotic to question the US government? From left-biased MSM to right-winged talk radio, EVERYBODY questions the government.

  16. Did anyone (British or Irish based) see the Channel 4 documentary on the Miracle of Stairwell B on Sunday night? An Amazing story.

  17. "RC -it has the simple benefit of being the facts. So much easier"

    nonsense. The facts contradict the official version, as do the laws of physics.

    "Good man, RC. I suppose it was a Mossad-fired missile. And JFK was killed by the FBI."

    We won’t know what hit the Pentagon until the government releases the photographic evidence. As for JFK, E Howard Hunt confessed to his part in the assassination, and he was CIA, not FBI. But the salient point is the official version was a crock of shit.

    Patty,

    well, how about asking why Building 7 was demolished? Or why Norad stood down? Or why your leaders are turning America into a fascist state?

  18. Alert the men in the white suits that another patient has left the facility.

  19. Oh purlease dont tell me Americans still believe commies killed JFK. You dont do you guys? Genuine question – i thought it was clear anyone could drive a truck through that government version? The salient point very much is the official version was a crock of shit! To be fair I dont think Reg is American though.

  20. Alison: Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. Conspiracy theories abound on this and many events.

  21. Alison, I’m Irish.

    The BBC (those puppets of the US Military-Industrial Complex) did a programme rebutting the conspiracy theories around the JFK assassination – particularly re the "magic bullet".

    The problem is that human nature finds it hard to accept such a popular figure was assassinated by an oddball loner. (The obsession with Diana’s death being a conspiracy is similar.)

    RC,

    All the evidence points to the official version of 9/11 being correct. I find it amazing that people think the US Govt competent enough to carry out all the chicanery and conspiracies they are accused of. More often than not all is exactly as it seems.

  22. Don’t forget that one in five Americans believe in alien abductions, and 3.7 million say they have been abducted!

    David came across this story last week, and I must admit it did have me worried!

    An analyis here
    http://www.thestreet.com/newsanalysis/optionsfutures/10377063.html

  23. RC: "well, how about asking why Building 7 was demolished? Or why Norad stood down? Or why your leaders are turning America into a fascist state?"

    Even paranoids have enemies. That being said, if you’re hearing voices, take medication.

  24. Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK

    Thats the crock i was talking about. You dont need conspiracy theories or magic bullet theories on that one just common sense. Sorry!

  25. Alison: You don’t have to be sorry, plenty of folks believe it was some grand conspiracy. You are entitled to your opinion, but the weight of evidence is against you.

  26. I dont think its a ‘grand’ conspiracy Mahons. Neither for that matter do i think it was ever a commie one. But I certainly dont believe LHO killed JFK. Im pretty certain the weight of evidence is equally divided – but if nothing else the official version is pretty damn hilarious from a practical standpoint (to put it mildy).

  27. RC: I havent heard of the E Howard Hunt thing i admit – ill look him up,

  28. I’ve read the Warren Commission findings and I don’t recall there being many hilarious moments, but perhaps it is a sense of taste. Conspiracy theories are generally hard to overcome by their very nature.

    I wonder if there is an entry that would have more hits on Google than "JFK Assassination". A large topic, and one on which there is some reasonable disagreement, but one in which there is far more bogus theory (see for example Oliver Stone’s movie).

  29. RC, 7WTC was not demolished. It was an unusual structure due the electricity substation taking up the bottom 12 floors. A fire was started and the building was damaged when debris from 1WTC or 2WTC struck it. The building contained large amounts of diesel fuel for generators. The theory goes that the damage plus the diesel fire brought it down.

    7WTC has been rebuilt and once again has an electricity substation in the lower 12 floors. This time it has more fireproofing…

    Images have been released from a Pentagon security camera showing something flying into the building, which, no matter how heavily guarded it might have been, did not have any aircraft deflecting devices.

    Don’t let your hate blind you from simple science.

  30. Conspiracies are everywhere:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI

  31. Mark,

    "Don’t let your hate blind you from simple science"

    what hate? what simple science? Look at the building coming down. No building has ever collapsed in this way unless it was demolished.

    Alison,

    whether you decide to look into the ludicrous official version of 9-11, you know you’re facing an uphill struggle when these poor people can’t even accept they were lied to about JFK – even when they have the confession of one of the perpetrators plus all the other evidence. Do you think I should tell them that father Christmas doesn’t exist? It may be too shocking.

    But of course I’m the crazy one. If you Americans were even a fraction as patriotic as you kid yourselves you are, there wouldn’t be a problem, but what have you done to oppose the Patriot Act and all the other fascist laws trashing your constitution of your emperor Bush? Sweet f*** all, that’s what.

  32. I find it amazing that people think the US Govt competent enough to carry out all the chicanery

    dont confuse the government with the state. and if you think for one moment that Western state intelligence and military appuratus has not been involved in terrorist acts (against western civilians), think again. Operation Gladio demonstrates that it has occured in the past.

    read "NATOs secret armies" by Daniele Ganser.

    And if you think elements in the US military havent thought of False Flag hijackings of planes, think again. Operation Northwoods demonstrates that it was concieved in the 1960s as a method to justify the invasion of Cuba. Ironically JFK strenuously rejected the notion.

    and ow about this very recent little bizarre nugget………

    http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1855852005

  33. No large tower had ever fallen down from an aircraft crashing into it, either. First time (and second) for everything.

    The empire state building was hit by an aircraft in the 30s.

  34. Mark,

    how many world firsts are you prepared to swallow before you start questioning?

    You’re right about the Empire State, which is why the twin towers were built specifically to withstand a plane, or indeed more than one plane, crashing into them, and buildings have burned for days and not collapsed like Building 7.

    It’s only those who are not prepared to accept the concept of an inside job who continue to dismiss what the evidence leads to.

  35. Oh God. RC is a ‘troofer’.

    "Monica happens to be right on this (my keyboard melts).
    Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 03:42PM | Unregistered Commentermahons"

    You’ll get used to it eventually, Mahons. You’re going to go through a lot of keyboards, though! 🙂

  36. So what if the empire state building was hit by a 30’s plane? All planes are not made alike, a 30’s plane does not make the same bang as a modern jumbo. Nowhere near the same amount of fuel, nowhere near the same weight either.

    If a 30’s plane hit the towers loaded with 30’s explosives, as much as it could carry, it would still be standing now.

  37. *Also, the empire state was built the old way, and the twin towers were made the new way, whereby the empire state is a big hollow monolith and the twin towers were skeletons like the dinosaurs you see in the museum.

  38. BNPM,

    the twin towers were designed to withstand a fully-fueled 707.

  39. Hi RC
    I used to work with a guy who was a committed 9-11 "truth" campaigner. I thought some of his arguments had merit and I have heard from structural engineers who said the towers would not have collapsed if hit from a plane.
    However, I have to ask, if "they" wanted a false flag attack why not just settle for a car bomb (or series of them) in crowded areas. Surely that would have the same effect on public opinoin and at less high risk of discovery.

    Essentially I think 9/11 was too complex to be entertained as a viable false flag operation – especially given the number of people who would have to be kept in the loop

  40. Andy,

    we can all speculate on these matters. Part of the problem is the refusal of the government to answer questions. The prime example of this is their refusal to release film of the attack on the Pentagon.

    The question you raise seems to be one of motive, which in any murder enquiry will play a part, but does not overrule concrete evidence. I disagree that a series of car bombs would have had anything like the traumatic effect of the 9-11 attacks. Without a doubt those images are imprinted in all our minds, and they certainly fit the description of a "Pearl Habor-style attack".

  41. Essentially I think 9/11 was too complex to be entertained as a viable false flag operation.

    actually i think its too complex for false flag to be so easily ruled out. afterall the official theory has us believe that a few guys in a cave organised the whole thing, without the american authorities knowing about it.

    but if you really want to understand how its possible, read about how intelligence communities operate, and not get overly caught up with the ins and outs of 9/11 itself.

    Check this guy out:

    www dot tinyurl dot com/2qf6vu

    BTW: the causus belli for germanys invasion of poland was a false flag terrorist act. so in my opinion people who think its inconceivable to the point of being ridiculous are the deluded ones.

  42. Andy, the towers did not collapse from the impact of the aircraft, they collapsed due to softening of the steel cause by the high temperature fuel fire after the impact.

    RC, AFAIK there is no film of the attack on the pentagon except for the parking lot security camera. Think about this for a moment… no-one had ever deliberately crashed an airliner into a building before, so there were no air defenses against this type of thing. There were also no security cameras pointed at the sky.

    Secondly the aircraft was travelling at around 400 mph as it struck. That’s 587 feet per second. The camera that saw the aircraft pass (and the images have been released, it’s disingenuous of you to say otherwise) showed something blurry on a couple of frames. This is your typical low quality security camera that doesn’t capture motion well and was partially blinded by the sun. Even a camera looking directly down the approaching path of the plane would only have seen anything on the last few frames before being destroyed.

    It’s not that I’m not prepared to believe the possibility of an inside job, it’s that everything can be explained if you think about it scientifically.

    I think the most interesting question is this: If we accept the truthers point of view, what did the government do with the people on board that aircraft? And where did the aircraft go? And how did they get parts of that aircraft, appropriately shredded and burned, to the pentagon so quickly? A relative of a friend of mine was onboard the one that crashed in a field. Was the government taking them to be killed somewhere as part of the cover-up of another attack?

  43. DT, it’s only complex if you think that it was organized by the government. If OBL really did do it, then yes, the operation was organized in a cave somewhere. It’s not complex. 16 guys, half flight trained, and some box cutters. You just need money and time.

    Secretly hiding sufficient explosive to bring down multiple buildings without anyone noticing IS complex.

  44. DT, it’s only complex if you think that it was organized by the government. If OBL really did do it, then yes, the operation was organized in a cave somewhere. It’s not complex. 16 guys, half flight trained, and some box cutters. You just need money and time.

    indeed, but none of that explains the multipule exercises (15) some with related scenarios, including "live-fly" hyjacks, FAA radar injects, and large scale removal of fighter cover in the sector. are we to believe that Al Queda have infiltrated many levels inside the US military?

    Secretly hiding sufficient explosive to bring down multiple buildings without anyone noticing IS complex.

    there are much more intriguing things than the curious nature of the collapses, which gets more attention than it deserves. afterall who can really say. tho WTC7 is interesting because for it to fall like it did would require all columns to fail almost simultaneously. for me its a distraction.

  45. DT, 7WTC is the one part of the whole thing that is difficult. My opinion is that the fact of there being a 12 story cavern in the base of the building with another 40 or so floors above, made it behave structurally unlike any other building.

    The problem is that if you buy into the theory of 7 being demolished by the govt then you are going down the path of believing, like RC, that the government killed the passengers on the plane that would have hit the pentagon, if a plane had hit it, which everyone (or at least RC) knows it didn’t.

    RC, what about all the people on nearby freeways that saw the plane fly over them and hit the pentagon? Did the government buy them off? All of them?

  46. What people forget is that on the morning of 7/7, before the peace lovers went bang, there was a ‘large scale emergency services drill’. It just happened to be on the right day, at the right place.

    ‘Just happened’ My arse.

    That’s a real and verifiable thing, and something which very quickly went down the memory hole. See 7/7 was planned so the 4 bombers would block the tubes, and a 5th bomb was to explode under the river, above a deep tunnel, flooding the whole network and drowning everyone. Luckily that fifth bomb was found the day before.

    I wonder if that 4th line was closed for ‘maintenance’ on that day so that no bomber could block it, and it could have acted as an evacuation line if it all went a bit too vibrant?

  47. Mark,

    I never said a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon. Somebody (mockingly) suggested that a missile did, and I said that the mystery would be ended if the Government released footage. After some considerable time, they release the little bit from that one camera, but I understand they confiscated a number of videos in the minutes following the attack. My point is clear; questions continue because the Government doesn’t address them.

    As for elaborating theories as to what happened to the passengers, I haven’t done that. You’re painting conspiracy theories that I haven’t said. If it was indeed the plane it was supposed to be that hit the Pentagon, there are still huge question marks with the official narrative, such as why did the plane perform a 270 degree manoeuvre and slam into the side that it did? Was the supposed hijacker capable of doing this, given his reported lack of flying skills? Why was the plane not shot down? The clue to this last question is in the testimony of Norman Mineta who witnessed Cheney’s response to the question from an underling about whether "the order still stands". See it on google video if you wish. The fact is, for the plane not to be shot down (remember that the whole world already knew that America was under attack) then the automatic response would have to be overridden.

    As for Building 7 you say "The problem is that if you buy into the theory of 7 being demolished by the govt then you are going down the path…"

    Please look at the footage. The question is what it demolished? Or rather how on earth could it have fallen the way it did if it wasn’t demolished? Who did it is very much secondary.

  48. I think you did suggest something other than a plane struck the pentagon. Here’s what you said:

    "I guess if you’ll swallow a plane slamming into the Pentagon (aka the most heavily defended building in the world) one hour after the whole world knew America was under attack, etc etc down the line of smoking guns, you’ll swallow anything"

    and

    "We won’t know what hit the Pentagon until the government releases the photographic evidence"

  49. mark i dont claim to have all the answers, and as i said, try to avoid getting sucked in by the whole buildings issue.

    the most important issues about 9/11 are the relationships of key hijackers to the intelligence community. and that they were possibly assets.

  50. Mark,

    these two statements do not contradict what I’ve just said. In the first case, I mention the time it happened, i.e. considerably after the second plane hit the WTC. This is indeed relevant. As is the fact that the Pentagon is supposed to be very well defended.

    In the second, I didn’t explicitly dispute the idea that a missile hit the Pentagon, nor was it me that raised it in the first place. I merely said the issue would be settled if the Government showed photographic evidence. The little they have shown does not show a passenger jet. This doesn’t mean that a passenger jet didn’t hit the Pentagon, only that the evidence has not been produced to show it. In any case this is but one detail, and there are still many questions that remain unanswered. I point to some of these above, another one is that analysis of the flight recorder does not tally with the supposed flight path.

    I don’t think the onus is on me to produce conspiracy theories that detail exactly what happened on that day. How can I know? What I can do is point to the weaknesses in the official story, which is a conspiracy theory itself.