Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Len Colby]

What I wrote was an an answer to Mark's question about there never being an investigation into the inside trading and put options ( ie: the money trail ) ... Not your spin on it .

But as I pointed out you were wrong in that case as well since the SEC investigated it.

I only mentioned it to show that no matter how you interpret Duane’s absurd remark it was wrong. The claims of insider trading fall flat based on info in the public domain.

Len ... I would say that based on this article which is a link off of one of the links you posted , that it would be your remarks which are absurd .

...........................................................

Suspicious profits sit uncollected

Airline investors seem to be lying low

The "it" I was referring to was the SEC investigation which was concluded after the article was published. It was even mentioned in the article.

In case you hadn’t noticed Duane that article was also from September 2001. Nothing in it contradicted the main points 911myths made

1) The large numbers of UAL and AMR put options sold in early September followed a downturn in the economy and warnings that the airline industry would be hit.

2) There were days in April 2001 in which more UAL put options had been sold than in early September.

3) AMR sold more put options on some days in early September than any other days that year but this followed the company issuing a “profit warning” (i.e. a public notice that they expected to make less profit than predicted).

4) Other companies, including those in the travel sector also sold a large number of put options.

I’d like to see a reference from after September 2001 that the “profits” had gone “unclaimed”.

Put options it seems can be sold at anytime up to their expiration date which falls “on the 3rd Friday of the expiration month” can vary from “one month out to more than a year” after the date of purchase. I.E. At the very least they didn’t expire till November 16 and could well have done so after September 2002. There was nothing in the article which was based mostly on one unnamed source, about when the puts expired.

There are various reasons why the holder of an non-expiring put option would not have sold them in late September 2001

1) They could have wanted to avoid the perception they were profiting from tragedy this could especially go for well known or institutional investors.

2) They could have become especially shy after allegations of insider trading surfaced.

3) Most importantly they could have expected to make even more money at a latter date and if the options were long term enough they would have been right as the chart below demonstrates.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research....asp?symbol=AMR

There is also good reason for the government not to divulge the names of the people who bought the put options; I assume that unless they have enough information to indict them for a crime that would be considered personal information.

INFO ABOUT PUT OPTIONS:

“Put options give the buyer the right, but not the obligation, to sell an underlying asset at the strike price until market close on THE 3RD FRIDAY OF THE EXPIRATION MONTH. Just like call options, put options come in various strike prices depending on the current market price of the underlying instrument with a variety of expiration dates. EXPIRATION DATES CAN VARY FROM ONE MONTH OUT TO MORE THAN A YEAR (LEAPS options). However, unlike call options, YOU MIGHT CONSIDER GOING LONG A PUT OPTION IF YOU EXPECT MARKET PRICES TO FALL (bearish). In contrast, if you are bullish (expect the market to rise), you might consider selling a put option.”

http://biz.yahoo.com/opt/basics4.html

Basically the same info can be found on this site run by Forbes:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/putoption.asp

From a sample put option contract on a site run by eBay:

“The Seller may, at his/its sole discretion, exercise his Put Option at ANY TIME within the Put Option Period, in whole or in part.”

http://contracts.onecle.com/ebay/ibazar-pu...tion-2001.shtml

From a real contract:

“The Options evidenced by this Put Option Certificate may be exercised in whole or in part at ANY TIME, commencing upon the issuance hereof and ending at 5:00 o'clock p.m. on the Put Option Expiration Date; provided, however, that

the Company may extend the Redemption Period of this Option by giving notice of such extension.”

http://www.secinfo.com/duRaw.89.d.htm

[Duane Daman]

There is also good reason for the government not to divulge the names of the people who bought the put options; I assume that unless they have enough information to indict them for a crime that would be considered personal information.

There is also good reason for government criminals not to implicate themselves in this crime ....I would assume that they never intend to divulge the names of any of the inside traders , for obvious reasons .

[Duane Daman]

Oh and since you claim some grand governmental coverup, where is your proof?

" Everytime that idiot opens his stupid mouth I'm afraid he's gonna blow our 9/11 cover-up . "

[Guest David Guyatt]

What I wrote was an an answer to Mark's question about there never being an investigation into the inside trading and put options ( ie: the money trail ) ... Not your spin on it .

But as I pointed out you were wrong in that case as well since the SEC investigated it.

I only mentioned it to show that no matter how you interpret Duane’s absurd remark it was wrong. The claims of insider trading fall flat based on info in the public domain.

Len ... I would say that based on this article which is a link off of one of the links you posted , that it would be your remarks which are absurd .

...........................................................

Suspicious profits sit uncollected

Airline investors seem to be lying low

The "it" I was referring to was the SEC investigation which was concluded after the article was published. It was even mentioned in the article.

In case you hadn’t noticed Duane that article was also from September 2001. Nothing in it contradicted the main points 911myths made

1) The large numbers of UAL and AMR put options sold in early September followed a downturn in the economy and warnings that the airline industry would be hit.

2) There were days in April 2001 in which more UAL put options had been sold than in early September.

3) AMR sold more put options on some days in early September than any other days that year but this followed the company issuing a “profit warning” (i.e. a public notice that they expected to make less profit than predicted).

4) Other companies, including those in the travel sector also sold a large number of put options.

I’d like to see a reference from after September 2001 that the “profits” had gone “unclaimed”.

Put options it seems can be sold at anytime up to their expiration date which falls “on the 3rd Friday of the expiration month” can vary from “one month out to more than a year” after the date of purchase. I.E. At the very least they didn’t expire till November 16 and could well have done so after September 2002. There was nothing in the article which was based mostly on one unnamed source, about when the puts expired.

There are various reasons why the holder of an non-expiring put option would not have sold them in late September 2001

1) They could have wanted to avoid the perception they were profiting from tragedy this could especially go for well known or institutional investors.

2) They could have become especially shy after allegations of insider trading surfaced.

3) Most importantly they could have expected to make even more money at a latter date and if the options were long term enough they would have been right as the chart below demonstrates.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research....asp?symbol=AMR

There is also good reason for the government not to divulge the names of the people who bought the put options; I assume that unless they have enough information to indict them for a crime that would be considered personal information.

INFO ABOUT PUT OPTIONS:

“Put options give the buyer the right, but not the obligation, to sell an underlying asset at the strike price until market close on THE 3RD FRIDAY OF THE EXPIRATION MONTH. Just like call options, put options come in various strike prices depending on the current market price of the underlying instrument with a variety of expiration dates. EXPIRATION DATES CAN VARY FROM ONE MONTH OUT TO MORE THAN A YEAR (LEAPS options). However, unlike call options, YOU MIGHT CONSIDER GOING LONG A PUT OPTION IF YOU EXPECT MARKET PRICES TO FALL (bearish). In contrast, if you are bullish (expect the market to rise), you might consider selling a put option.”

http://biz.yahoo.com/opt/basics4.html

Basically the same info can be found on this site run by Forbes:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/putoption.asp

From a sample put option contract on a site run by eBay:

“The Seller may, at his/its sole discretion, exercise his Put Option at ANY TIME within the Put Option Period, in whole or in part.”

http://contracts.onecle.com/ebay/ibazar-pu...tion-2001.shtml

From a real contract:

“The Options evidenced by this Put Option Certificate may be exercised in whole or in part at ANY TIME, commencing upon the issuance hereof and ending at 5:00 o'clock p.m. on the Put Option Expiration Date; provided, however, that

the Company may extend the Redemption Period of this Option by giving notice of such extension.”

http://www.secinfo.com/duRaw.89.d.htm

Jeez, Len. The SEC investigates something and that it... all solved. Rest easy. Nothing happened. Move along folks.

Don't think so.

I remember back to the days when a certain chairman of the Fed later became the DCI of the CIA (Bill Casey) and during his crooked tenure of the SEC he used to get his mafia pals to run deals on the back of his insider trading info. I could also give you some skinny on a Chairman of a regional Fed who was less than spartan in these matters.

Being an old timer, I also remember the sugar trades that were tied back to the CIA just prior to the failed Bay of Pigs fiasco. Just a few good ol' boys making a killing from inside knowledge of what was [meant] to be.

I also recall the 911 shorts story as it happened ( a LOT of people were looking at that) and it was MIGHTY smelly -- enough to hit the major media headlines over here as well as over there. And enough to start investigations by numerous regulatory bodies in all sorts of overseas jurisdictions. Then, bam, it all went quiet. No wonder people are suspicious.

David

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Sure enough, Cockburn has responded to Fisk in under 24 hours by sicking the pretentious left-gatekeeping counterpunch crowd on him. They are leaping into their tactically knatty tweeds and are racing for the muscle cars they drive ironically to work where they will proceed to write articles about WHAT WERE LISTENING TO THIS WEEK and articles attacking all aspects of the 9/11 truth "movement". Already I can feel upper middle-class eyebrows doing the wave in the redwoods. Perhaps another ironic piece on Bohemian Grove will set the last sociology department atwitter.

http://www.counterpunch.org/garcia08272007.html

An excellent response misinformed Mr. Fisk. Other than Ad Homs can you find any fault with what Garcia wrote?

------------

Len, Yes Im sure I can find quite a number of faults. Time is quick so I'll break it down into a number of responses.

In first paragrpah the author seems to accept a highly debateable proposition as a universal truth: that Bush incompetence has been the main explantion for this disasterous adminsitration. As you know incompetence can serve a usefull purpose, especially if you are a Bush Pioneer in Mississippi with access to cheap chain saws and mexicans. The "incompetence" argument is swallowed whole. Unquestioned assumptions are the throne of propaganda. Please go to work on my spelling. I hope it's counted towards our GNP.

--------------------

[Len Colby]

Jeez, Len. The SEC investigates something and that it... all solved. Rest easy. Nothing happened. Move along folks.

Don't think so.

I remember back to the days when a certain chairman of the Fed later became the DCI of the CIA (Bill Casey) and during his crooked tenure of the SEC he used to get his mafia pals to run deals on the back of his insider trading info. I could also give you some skinny on a Chairman of a regional Fed who was less than spartan in these matters.

Jeez, David I never said that the invetigation by the SEC settled the matter. I cited it to show that Duane's claim that there hadn't been "any formal government investigation into 9/11" by which he claims he really meant that there hadn't been "any formal government investigation into insider trading related to 9/11" was false.

[Duane Daman]

Jeez, Len. The SEC investigates something and that it... all solved. Rest easy. Nothing happened. Move along folks.

Don't think so.

I remember back to the days when a certain chairman of the Fed later became the DCI of the CIA (Bill Casey) and during his crooked tenure of the SEC he used to get his mafia pals to run deals on the back of his insider trading info. I could also give you some skinny on a Chairman of a regional Fed who was less than spartan in these matters.

Jeez, David I never said that the invetigation by the SEC settled the matter. I cited it to show that Duane's claim that there hadn't been "any formal government investigation into 9/11" by which he claims he really meant that there hadn't been "any formal government investigation into insider trading related to 9/11" was false.

Jeez, Len ... Can't you ever get anything right ? .... I wasn't talking about a formal government pretense of an investigation ... I was talking about an HONEST INDEPENDENT investigation into who profited ( or who was too afraid to profit ) from the 9/11 attacks .

You are looking pretty foolish now in your zeal to always try to prove me wrong about everything .... Give it rest already .

[Len Colby]

OK so you want us to believe that when you wrote:

- there hadn't been "any formal government investigation into 9/11"

you really meant:

- "there hadn't been "any HONEST formal INDEPENDENT government investigation into INSIDER TRADING RELATED TO 9/11"?

Is that the story you wanna run with? Are people supposed to divine what you really mean when you say or write something else? What exactly did you mean by an “independent” “government” investigation? Aren’t the words in quotes antonyms in your lexicon?

That’s neat trick. When shown to be wrong you say, “I didn't really mean what I said, I obviously meant something else”. Sorry but I’m not buying it.

Also how do you know the SEC’s investigation was a pretense? Can you back this with information other than some articles written more than a few weeks after the fact or anything from someone with expertise in financial matters? Anything that refutes the information in the links I posted? No, you assume it was a pretense because it did come to same uninformed conclusion you did. Your logic seems circular.

1) There was insider trading related to 9/11

2) The SEC said they did uncover any

3) Therefore their investigation was a sham

4) They would only do that if they were covering for the culprits in or tied to the government.

5) Therefore there was an inside job

6) Therefore there was insider training

“your zeal to always try to prove me wrong about everything”

Oh yeah Duane there lots of people out to get you. I “always try to prove [you] wrong”? Let’s try a reality check now why don’t we? Why don’t you take a look and see how many of your posts I reply to and see how many of my posts are at all related to anything you’ve said.

[Mark Stapleton]

OK so you want us to believe that when you wrote:

- there hadn't been "any formal government investigation into 9/11"

you really meant:

- "there hadn't been "any HONEST formal INDEPENDENT government investigation into INSIDER TRADING RELATED TO 9/11"?

Is that the story you wanna run with? Are people supposed to divine what you really mean when you say or write something else? What exactly did you mean by an “independent” “government” investigation? Aren’t the words in quotes antonyms in your lexicon?

That’s neat trick. When shown to be wrong you say, “I didn't really mean what I said, I obviously meant something else”. Sorry but I’m not buying it.

Also how do you know the SEC’s investigation was a pretense? Can you back this with information other than some articles written more than a few weeks after the fact or anything from someone with expertise in financial matters? Anything that refutes the information in the links I posted? No, you assume it was a pretense because it did come to same uninformed conclusion you did. Your logic seems circular.

1) There was insider trading related to 9/11

2) The SEC said they did uncover any

3) Therefore their investigation was a sham

4) They would only do that if they were covering for the culprits in or tied to the government.

5) Therefore there was an inside job

6) Therefore there was insider training

“your zeal to always try to prove me wrong about everything”

Oh yeah Duane there lots of people out to get you. I “always try to prove [you] wrong”? Let’s try a reality check now why don’t we? Why don’t you take a look and see how many of your posts I reply to and see how many of my posts are at all related to anything you’ve said.

Your disputes which focus on hair splitting semantics are too much, Len.

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing. What the hell does it matter? Are posters expected to qualify and clarify every sentence to your satisfaction?

You really need a holiday.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Duane Daman]

Peter and Mark ... I couldn't have said it better myself ... Thanks for saving me the trouble .

Len .... My reply (though not to your satisfaction and as brief as it was ) was in context to the discussion with Mark .... He seemed to have no trouble understanding what I meant ... but in the future I will be sure to spell everything out in more detail , just for you.

The bottom line is that I don't believe that any independent , NON-GOVERNMENT investigation will ever take place on any aspect of the 9/11 attacks , including who profited by those attacks through insider trading and put options , or who was too afraid to collect their earnings via those means .

Funny how when you are losing an argument , you always resort to nit picking and insults .... I don't think that there are "lots of people out to get me " ... I think there are only a few discussion forum Apollo apologists and disinformation artists ( agents ) busy pushing the official government version of 9/11 , who are out to get me ....

Edited August 29, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

OK so you want us to believe that when you wrote:

- there hadn't been "any formal government investigation into 9/11"

you really meant:

- "there hadn't been "any HONEST formal INDEPENDENT government investigation into INSIDER TRADING RELATED TO 9/11"?

Is that the story you wanna run with? Are people supposed to divine what you really mean when you say or write something else? What exactly did you mean by an "independent" "government" investigation? Aren't the words in quotes antonyms in your lexicon?

That's neat trick. When shown to be wrong you say, "I didn't really mean what I said, I obviously meant something else". Sorry but I'm not buying it.

Also how do you know the SEC's investigation was a pretense? Can you back this with information other than some articles written more than a few weeks after the fact or anything from someone with expertise in financial matters? Anything that refutes the information in the links I posted? No, you assume it was a pretense because it did come to same uninformed conclusion you did. Your logic seems circular.

1) There was insider trading related to 9/11

2) The SEC said they did uncover any

3) Therefore their investigation was a sham

4) They would only do that if they were covering for the culprits in or tied to the government.

5) Therefore there was an inside job

6) Therefore there was insider training

"your zeal to always try to prove me wrong about everything"

Oh yeah Duane there lots of people out to get you. I "always try to prove [you] wrong"? Let's try a reality check now why don't we? Why don't you take a look and see how many of your posts I reply to and see how many of my posts are at all related to anything you've said.

That's Len's job from the Langley Borg [iMO] to prove all who doubt the official  line on anything wrong. Ignore him. My take is he is a Company man - even sent his 'posts' from Langley central. He never met a USG investigation he didn't bow to nor a dissenter he could tolerate. Just as the police and FBI use the 'good cop - bad cop' routine he parades here as a 'liberal' - don't 'buy it'....he is poison of the Langely/Cameron variety - and an ego-mainiac, to boot. His dydactic pseudo-intellecutal / arrogant scoldings are just his facade. Ignore. As well known all government investigations [sic] such as WC, HSCA, 911 and all others are without bias....yeah right! It is Len's job to prove all skeptics of things 'official' wrong. IMO

Amazing...you complain about personal attacks and breaking the forum rules (and "the sprit of the rules") and then you post this provocation and personal attack. Sheesh. Got that old double standard feeling all over again.

[Craig Lamson]

OK so you want us to believe that when you wrote:

- there hadn't been "any formal government investigation into 9/11"

you really meant:

- "there hadn't been "any HONEST formal INDEPENDENT government investigation into INSIDER TRADING RELATED TO 9/11"?

Is that the story you wanna run with? Are people supposed to divine what you really mean when you say or write something else? What exactly did you mean by an "independent" "government" investigation? Aren't the words in quotes antonyms in your lexicon?

That's neat trick. When shown to be wrong you say, "I didn't really mean what I said, I obviously meant something else". Sorry but I'm not buying it.

Also how do you know the SEC's investigation was a pretense? Can you back this with information other than some articles written more than a few weeks after the fact or anything from someone with expertise in financial matters? Anything that refutes the information in the links I posted? No, you assume it was a pretense because it did come to same uninformed conclusion you did. Your logic seems circular.

1) There was insider trading related to 9/11

2) The SEC said they did uncover any

3) Therefore their investigation was a sham

4) They would only do that if they were covering for the culprits in or tied to the government.

5) Therefore there was an inside job

6) Therefore there was insider training

"your zeal to always try to prove me wrong about everything"

Oh yeah Duane there lots of people out to get you. I "always try to prove [you] wrong"? Let's try a reality check now why don't we? Why don't you take a look and see how many of your posts I reply to and see how many of my posts are at all related to anything you've said.

That's Len's job from the Langley Borg [iMO] to prove all who doubt the official  line on anything wrong. Ignore him. My take is he is a Company man - even sent his 'posts' from Langley central. He never met a USG investigation he didn't bow to nor a dissenter he could tolerate. Just as the police and FBI use the 'good cop - bad cop' routine he parades here as a 'liberal' - don't 'buy it'....he is poison of the Langely/Cameron variety - and an ego-mainiac, to boot. His dydactic pseudo-intellecutal / arrogant scoldings are just his facade. Ignore. As well known all government investigations [sic] such as WC, HSCA, 911 and all others are without bias....yeah right! It is Len's job to prove all skeptics of things 'official' wrong. IMO

Amazing...you complain about personal attacks and breaking the forum rules (and "the sprit of the rules") and then you post this provocation and personal attack. Sheesh. Got that old double standard feeling all over again.

What totally escapes ultra-ultra-ultra-Rightwingers like youself is the nuance between action and reaction. Might the multitudes who hate the USA for their actions not be justified in their REACTION? I'd say the same for me vis-a-vis you and Colby. I fear this is a level of logic, morality and ethics well beyond you ken.

Exactly what has Len done in the post you are referencing that warrents a personl attaack. Have the points Len has raied proven to be beyond your ability to rebut? Did he level a personal attack against you or Duane. The answer is no. You on the other hand launched an unprovoked personal attack.

The rules are VERY clear. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. They do NOT say no personal attacks except to REACT. Exactly how is your blatant disregard for the rules (considering your complaints about others breaking the same rules) moral, ethical or logical? The hypocrisy is breath taking.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

OK so you want us to believe that when you wrote:

- there hadn't been "any formal government investigation into 9/11"

you really meant:

- "there hadn't been "any HONEST formal INDEPENDENT government investigation into INSIDER TRADING RELATED TO 9/11"?

Is that the story you wanna run with? Are people supposed to divine what you really mean when you say or write something else? What exactly did you mean by an "independent" "government" investigation? Aren't the words in quotes antonyms in your lexicon?

That's neat trick. When shown to be wrong you say, "I didn't really mean what I said, I obviously meant something else". Sorry but I'm not buying it.

Also how do you know the SEC's investigation was a pretense? Can you back this with information other than some articles written more than a few weeks after the fact or anything from someone with expertise in financial matters? Anything that refutes the information in the links I posted? No, you assume it was a pretense because it did come to same uninformed conclusion you did. Your logic seems circular.

1) There was insider trading related to 9/11

2) The SEC said they did uncover any

3) Therefore their investigation was a sham

4) They would only do that if they were covering for the culprits in or tied to the government.

5) Therefore there was an inside job

6) Therefore there was insider training

"your zeal to always try to prove me wrong about everything"

Oh yeah Duane there lots of people out to get you. I "always try to prove [you] wrong"? Let's try a reality check now why don't we? Why don't you take a look and see how many of your posts I reply to and see how many of my posts are at all related to anything you've said.

That's Len's job from the Langley Borg [iMO] to prove all who doubt the official  line on anything wrong. Ignore him. My take is he is a Company man - even sent his 'posts' from Langley central. He never met a USG investigation he didn't bow to nor a dissenter he could tolerate. Just as the police and FBI use the 'good cop - bad cop' routine he parades here as a 'liberal' - don't 'buy it'....he is poison of the Langely/Cameron variety - and an ego-mainiac, to boot. His dydactic pseudo-intellecutal / arrogant scoldings are just his facade. Ignore. As well known all government investigations [sic] such as WC, HSCA, 911 and all others are without bias....yeah right! It is Len's job to prove all skeptics of things 'official' wrong. IMO

Amazing...you complain about personal attacks and breaking the forum rules (and "the sprit of the rules") and then you post this provocation and personal attack. Sheesh. Got that old double standard feeling all over again.

What totally escapes ultra-ultra-ultra-Rightwingers like youself is the nuance between action and reaction. Might the multitudes who hate the USA for their actions not be justified in their REACTION? I'd say the same for me vis-a-vis you and Colby. I fear this is a level of logic, morality and ethics well beyond you ken.

Exactly what has Len done in the post you are referencing that warrents a personl attaack. Have the poits Len has raied proven to be beyond your ability to rebut? Did he level a personal attack against you or Duane. The answer is no. You on the other hand launched an unprovoked personal attack. T

What has not escaped me is your situational ethics. The rules are VERY clear. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. They do NOT say no personal attacks except to REACT. Exactly how is your blatant disregard for the rules (considering your complaints about others breaking the same rules) moral, ethical or logical? The hypocrisy is breath taking.

I propose a poll - who thinks who regularly abuses ad hominin attacks on the Forum.....might your name come up as number one, now that Slatery is gone? Most of Mr. Colby's posts to Jack, to me and many others are [iMO attacks] some disguised, slightly, some not. Yours are more blatant. Even when they contain content they come with VENOM have raised the lowered the level of civility and ability for those who might want to progress on subjects move ahead. I believe this is its purpose. Love, Peter

When you feel my posts are considered an ad hom, then hit the report button. My past or current posts are not the issue. Your current posts are. Go ahead and create your poll. I'll have no problem with the outcome.

However your poll will not deflect your current abuse of the forum rules.

Ya gotta love how rebutting someones posts can be considered an attack....sheesh, how weak.

[Len Colby]

I've replied to the 'side show' above on "my" thread. I was wondering if any more evidence of insider trading will be forth coming?

[Mark Stapleton]

I've replied to the 'side show' above on "my" thread. I was wondering if any more evidence of insider trading will be forth coming?

There's plenty of evidence already, thanks to some excellent posts from Duane and David Guyatt.

Like so many other controversial issues, there seems to be significant suspicion concerning this one too. I guess it follows automatically that if 9/11 was a false flag operation, then those who had foreknowledge might want to profit financially from that foreknowledge.

Thanks to Duane and David for their informative postings on this issue. Your points are well made and merit consideration, despite all the noisy, vitriolic interference coming from Heckle and Jeckle.