Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Financial side of the conspiracy

Options
  • 25-01-2021 9:13pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭


    I have a few questions that have bothered me for quite some time.

    The first one concerns Larry Silverstein and the insurance pay out that he received. The first one is did the insurers use any of the evidence in any of the conspiracy films to defend these claims?

    The second concerns the put options that are said to have been placed before 9\11. Were they collected and by whom? If bnot, does any evidence exist as to who bought them?

    Thirdly, was all the gold that was said to have been placed under the twin towers accounted for?


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    1. There have been huge number of insurance claims filed (some settling only in recent years) and as far as I am aware no insurance companies have used "conspiracy film evidence", including Silverstein's claims. As to why, 911 conspiracy videos are pretty tacky affairs, they specialise in using well known tricks and techniques to get the viewer to doubt the event, but few if any put forward any form of credible evidence for their theories, that's if they have a theory in the first place.

    2. From what I've read one institutional investor bought 95% of the put options on AA, but also bought stock. It's some trading strat, and was found to be innocuous (and coincidental) by the SEC and FBI

    3. Dunno about any gold at the towers


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭McGinniesta


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    1. There have been huge number of insurance claims filed (some settling only in recent years) and as far as I am aware no insurance companies have used "conspiracy film evidence", including Silverstein's claims. As to why, 911 conspiracy videos are pretty tacky affairs, they specialise in using well known tricks and techniques to get the viewer to doubt the event, but few if any put forward any form of credible evidence for their theories, that's if they have a theory in the first place.

    2. From what I've read one institutional investor bought 95% of the put options on AA, but also bought stock. It's some trading strat, and was found to be innocuous (and coincidental) by the SEC and FBI

    3. Dunno about any gold at the towers

    Who was it and did they collect the money?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Who was it and did they collect the money?

    No idea who it was, and to correct it was UAL not AA. Don't know if they exercised the put options, but presumed they would have.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭McGinniesta


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    No idea who it was, and to correct it was UAL not AA. Don't know if they exercised the put options, but presumed they would have.

    So where does one go to check this information and do you know why it wasn't included in the article that you read?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    So where does one go to check this information and do you know why it wasn't included in the article that you read?

    Perhaps it's out there but I haven't come across personal details like names which are often withheld in these types of investigations

    Good overview of the investigations here
    https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_App.pdf
    The UAL trading on September 6 is a good example. On that day alone, the UAL put
    option volume was much higher than any surrounding day and exceeded the call option
    volume by more than 20 times—highly suspicious numbers on their face.170 The SEC
    quickly discovered, however, that a single U.S. investment adviser had purchased 95
    percent of the UAL put option volume for the day. The investment adviser certainly did
    not fit the profile of an al Qaeda operative: it was based in the United States, registered
    with the SEC, and managed several hedge funds with $5.3 billion under management. In
    interviews by the SEC, both the CEO of the adviser and the trader who executed the trade
    explained that they—and not any client—made the decision to buy the put as part of a
    trading strategy based on a bearish view of the airline industry. They held bearish views
    for a number of reasons, including recently released on-time departure figures, which
    suggested the airlines were carrying fewer passengers, and recently disclosed news by
    AMR reflecting poor business fundamentals. In pursuit of this strategy, the adviser sold
    short a number of airline shares between September 6 and September 10; its transactions
    included the fortunate purchase of UAL puts. The adviser, however, also bought 115,000
    shares of AMR on September 10, believing that their price already reflected the recently
    released financial information and would not fall any further. Those shares dropped
    significantly when the markets reopened after the attacks. Looking at the totality of the
    adviser’s circumstances, as opposed to just the purchase of the puts, convinced the SEC
    that it had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks or al Qaeda. Still, the SEC referred

    the trade to the FBI, which also conducted its own investigation and reached the same
    conclusion.
    The AMR put trading on September 10 further reveals how trading that looks highly
    suspicious at first blush can prove innocuous. The put volume of AMR on September 10
    was unusually high and actually exceeded the call volume by a ratio of 6:1—again,
    highly suspicious on its face. The SEC traced much of the surge in volume to a California
    investment advice newsletter, distributed by email and fax on Sunday, September 9,
    which advised its subscribers to purchase a particular type of AMR put options. The SEC
    interviewed 28 individuals who purchased these types of AMR puts on September 10,
    and found that 26 of them cited the newsletter as the reason for their transaction. Another
    27 purchasers were listed as subscribers of the newsletter. The SEC interviewed the
    author of the newsletter, a U.S. citizen, who explained his investment strategy analysis,
    which had nothing to do with foreknowledge of 9/11. Other put option volume on
    September 10 was traced to similarly innocuous trades.
    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.
    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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭McGinniesta


    I'm just trying to figure out how all of this works.

    That article only really scratches the surface from what I can make out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    If you want to understand trading strategies? good luck, I've been in the industry a long time and it can be highly complex.

    As for the summary, it's pretty conclusive.

    The Securities Exchange Commission has a good understanding of exactly how trading and the market works, they ultimately saw nothing suspicious about the trades that would indicate "insider knowledge".


Advertisement