Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> Do you mean they bought 115,000 puts on American on 9/10
Yes. The day before.
or 115,000 shares on 9/10 (which is what you wrote)?
No, there was absolutely no hedge ! It was a straight short-sell from
the reports which have appeared in print, and they are not contradicted
AFAIK. That is what had immediately raised the suspicion of the SEC on
9/12, before the White House had a talk with them.
Needless to say, there is no way to verify these details as true or not.
Had the 9/11 commission been truly independent and adversarial - as was
Kenneth Starr for instance- then yes, we could trust more of what they
said ... and be able to discover who actually placed the beyond-risky
short sell trade - as this is a huge gamble that NO institutional trader
would ever dare to make - with the money of others and WITHOUT the hedge
in palce to limit the downside loss. Every broker will no doubt agree -
that without the hedge, the trader gets fired on the spot. Definite no-no.
...(which is the point which you were getting at, apparently)...
...but all of this info about Krongard had to be dug-up by others, since
the 9/11 commission was really no more than a rubber stamp for what the
White House was ordering them to say. Even worse, they were actively
impeding much of this information about Krongard.
Caveat. I find this stuff interesting, and worth reading, but do not
believe in the full extent of any high level conspiracy. Krongard may
have been near the top of the ladder. I do not buy the "missile theory"
or the fake passenger list or any of that other crap. The smoking gun is
WTC7 - building seven - and if Steven Jones had just stuck with just the
WTC7 as his main argument, then he would have found a lot more converts,
MANY more, as the other stuff is tenuous, at best, and ludicrous at
worst - and may have been planted to make the real damage seem to be
part of the same nut-case package.
However, there was definitely a signed and valid *demolition permit*
which had been issued by NYC to the WTC, following the old explosion in
the parking garage, and that was for the ENTIRE complex - as tenancy had
dropped way-off and they were intending to take the whole complex down,
regardless. There is zero argument about that, yet many casual observers
do not not know it. A photocopy of that demolition permit (circa 1997)
was on the net at one time, but appears to have been removed. At least
my link is dead.
And I agree that it would have been absolutely *unconscionable* for the
new owner to have allowed thousands of workers to continue to work
there, for the 3-4 years afterwards - in ignorance of this ! if the
buildings had already been fitted with the thermite - which is what
others are saying. Also the (over)insurance policy could never have been
issued, if this was known. Yet that is what some experts claim to see in
the video - clear evidence of timed sequential thermite detonation.
Jones
