Posted on 12/11/2001 9:57:28 AM PST by mancini
A good book to help one understand how this came to be is "Double Cross", by the brother and nephew of mobster Sam Giancana.
But I'm glad we gottem right now!
Kinda like havin' AIDS to keep from gettin' Raped?
But then, I have a Very Intense Dislike for the CIA. ;-)
And what type of person(s), entity or other type investor would be inclined to walk away from it?
It would be a bit absurd to speculate that any of the highjackers would be either smart enough or in a position to claim the profit. And any innocent party would just say "Hey, I hit the Trifecta";-) and cash in.
Maybe somebody can 'splain how this could happen.
I ended up finding a pretty interesting conspiracy article that I posted here.
"It is not all that uncommon in the investment banking business for a client to walk away from a trade.
Failing to settle a securities transaction on settlement day is known as "D.K." within the industry. The term is a contraction of "Don't Know."
The typical "D.K." occurs when a speculator or trade enters into a transaction for himself or for a client and refuses to settle the trade as agreed.
A "D.K.d" trade is typically associated with a losing trade.
In other words someone is trying to ride the bull market to new highs, and the market corrects itself downward. The long position the trader has placed has loses on settlement day, and they attempt to walk away from it.
Conversely, a trader that is short a position in a bear market (who anticipates the market going down and settling the trade by buying the security at a lower price than they sold it.) would lose money if the market rallied up in prices.
In both of these cases an unscrupulous trader may "D.K." the trade because it has losses in the trade that they either don't want to take, are unable to take, or unaware of the fact that a trade has been made in their name.
Never until the 9/11 put options, have I heard of anyone "D.K.ing" a trade that had millions of dollars of profits in it.
"D.K.ing" this trade is obviously a violation of security laws, but to walk away and leave millions on the table is because the person who made the trade know it is criminal blood money."
"...a spokesman for the German stock exchange Sunday said an investigation had found no evidence that Osama bin Laden or others profited from advance knowledge about Tuesday's terror attacks through stock trades."
All it says is that anyone who profited through stock trades (buying a put or selling a call is not a "stock trade") could not be shown to have had advance knowledge.
We also have to remember that "no evidence" has been morphed into "no conclusive proof" by attorneys and politicians, and the sheeple who let them get away with such phrases.
I've been told by a ranking member in the House and a friend was told by a U.S. Senator "If it's about the CIA, I don't want to hear it."
Does it matter? Seems to me that it might, but I'm not sure how.
... and if this post posts, he's not really banned.
"Between 6 and 7 September, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 "put" option contracts in UAL versus 396 call options – where a speculator bets on a price rising. Holders of the put options would have netted a profit of $5m (£3.3m) once the carrier's share price dived after 11 September. On 10 September, more trading in Chicago saw the purchase of 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day. Investigators cannot help but notice that no other airlines saw such trading in their put options.
It was not just airlines that were targeted by remarkably canny investors. One of the biggest occupants of the World Trade Centre was Morgan Stanley, the investment bank. In the first week of September, an average of 27 put option contracts was bought each day in its shares. The total for the three days before the attacks was 2,157. Merrill Lynch, anotherWTC tenant, saw 12,215 put options bought in the four days before the attacks, when the previous days had seen averages of 252 contracts a day.
Attribution ---- UK Independent
... and if this post posts, he's not really banned."
I know somebody who talks to himself... him fairly often. Probably his only friend, I'll e-mail him.
I'd like to see an amendment to the Constitution voted on that made Lawyers and Politicians have to use Sign Language Only. No writing, no talking, nothing but signing.
Maybe then we could get this Country Operating Constitutionally again.
hey now!
I used to like him before he started posting that ignorant Mena crap. He actually thinks Beelzebubba knew about the drugs that went through the B bush there.
Sheeeesh.
...yea.
I almost feel as if I've been hypnotised into buying that line, myself.
Until one reads this kind of thing.
...then it's as-if someone snapped their fingers.
Yeah, that's where he lost me too. Always tryin' to make it look like the CIA was involved in it, and then Vince F. and Bubba, finally in desperation tryin' to drag the Bush Family into it. Yellin' about Money Laundries, Drug Movement, ha, he even got into a shootin' incident just to get attention. Man, Good Ridance!
BTW, I don't know what Thinden's bit is with the guy. Don't suppose it's .........................nawww, nevermind.
Tell his only friend to tell ND we miss him, the ol' coot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.