List of Research Papers

[Dave Rogers]

What's the matter with journalof911studies.com?
Are they running out of steam? The number of articles is in steady decline - or bouncing back in 2011?

2006: 15 (june-december=7 months = 2.1/month)
2007: 29 (= 2.4/month)
2008: 8 (= 0,7/month)
2009: 6 (= 0.5/month)
2010: 2 (= 0.2/month)
2011: 2 (3 months so far, = 0.7/month)

The 2011 articles are a political, legal and historical opinion piece (O'Neill) and a study that supports the common narrative and refutes certain truther theories (Legge and Stutt). So nothing new and in favour of trutherism in a whole year! Do they publish at other truther-sites now? Or did they move up to real journals? Or is there simply nothing left to find?

Actually, they pretended to close down the journal a couple of years ago so they wouldn't have to come up with a fake pretext to refuse an article of Gregory Urich's that gave clear, well-reasoned and correct arguments that didn't support controlled demolition, so it's quite remarkable that they've published anything at all since then.

Dave

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

until you have managed to READ the freaking SEC reports which show that there was NO insider trading on 9/11.

With 8 sections redacted it not so clear and easy to read.

95% of the purchases came from Merryl Lynch. And they bought 115000 shares of UA on the day before... so they LOST money.

I assume you meant to type: 115000 shares of AA.

What is your source for the investor (USBIIWNCTTAQ) being Merryl Lynch? FYI, researcher Kevin Ryan found that it was Deutsche Bank Alex Brown.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...formed-trading-on-the-attacks-of-september-11

We should keep in mind that the 9/11 Commission Report is a summary of all the raw data, including thousands of papers in boxes at the National Archives. All we have is Paul Zelikow's word that he is correctly summarizing the data. The word "bought" is not enough to clarify the nature of the AA purchase. Critical thinkers know here are different ways to buy stocks and recognize such assumptions. Somewhere in those boxes should be the evidence to tell us whether the AA purchase was outright, or another put like UA.

I'm not saying that the AA purchase could not be a standard buy, just that we cannot ASSUME that it was, from the brief wording in the 9/11 Report. Zelikow wanted to keep the Report short. He did not leave the UA and AA transactions out of the Report, because he had to deal with them, or the Truthers would howl, because the 2 transactions were indeed suspicious.

If the US Based Institutional Investor gained money on UA and lost money on AA, then there was nothing suspicious, and no reason to even mention the transactions in the Report. Millions of unsuspicious transactions were not mentioned in the Report. Paul could have just said that the UA and AA purchases cancelled each other out, but he didn't. He had to mention them because they were suspicious.

Furthermore, Zelikow had to add the words "with no conceivable ties to Al Queda" when describing the USBIIWNCTTAQ, to try to make the investors look unsuspicious. Why add those words if the transactions were not suspicious?

If a man has nothing to hide, and goes on a flight, he simply tells the TSA "My name is Joe Smith" (or whatever) and boards. But if he says "My name is Joe Smith, with no conceivable ties to Al Queda" he is probably going to get a suspicious look from the TSA.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Because no reasonable person with average comprehension skills could honestly interpret the statement any other way than that the 10th September purchase actually occurred.

Agreed, the average person would not. But Critical Thinkers, with above average comprehension skills and ability to recognize assumptions, know that the word "buying" is not sufficient, in the 9/11 Commission Report. Stocks can be bought in many ways, including pay now, and pay later. The Report is only a summary of thousands of papers in boxes at the National Archives. Somewhere in there should be the detailed evidence to clarify how the AA stocks were bought, whether outright, or a put option. That can make the difference between the investors making money, or losing money.

 

[TruthersLie]

With 8 sections redacted it not so clear and easy to read.


I assume you meant to type: 115000 shares of AA.

What is your source for the investor (USBIIWNCTTAQ) being Merryl Lynch? FYI, researcher Kevin Ryan found that it was Deutsche Bank Alex Brown.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...formed-trading-on-the-attacks-of-september-11

ah yes....

The best we have is an unidentified source saying that "at least some" (not "most") of the trades for one of the shares in question (not "all") was made through Alex Brown. If it was so vital to use a "CIA-linked bank" to make these trades, then why not use all of them?

It's clear that, for the conspiracy to stand up, we must make an increasing number of assumptions. That the conspirators needed to use a particular bank, for instance, even though they have the power to cover up just about any investigation. That the conspirators had influence at AB Brown, even though Krongard had left years before. That the report about Deutsche Bank being involved in the first place is accurate, and that the conspirators would be stupid enough to let this information get out, but clever enough to spread the trades across other banks (which presumably must be "CIA-linked", too). Maybe this is all true, but it would help if there was some evidence to support any of these claims.

It is unsubstantiated and it is clearly part of the conspiracy. There is NO citation to support this claim. Please provide one.

And the best part... it is Kevin Ryan... you know, waterboy who LIED about what his employers did and didn't do... who was FIRED for telling that lie.... who was soooooo incompetent he couldn't file paperwork about his dismissal by the correct freaking DATE....

And you want me to believe ANYTHING that he says?

Of course we leave out the important part... the total amount of this particular PUT order

which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed

That is right... a total of 2.5 MILLION DOLLARS!!!!! Cue Dr. Evil laugh...



did you miss this from the 911 commission report? Chapter 5

"A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10...

It was posted that it was Merril Lynch... Not DB... (which isn't a US based institutional investor).... (I will find the citation soon... there is a different SEC report that I remember where they stated it was merrill lynch)
I think it was from this

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00139.pdf

Nope... it isn't that.. but it does provide the agents names who compiled the report that you are trying to cast doubt on.

Still looking for the merrill lynch link.

We should keep in mind that the 9/11 Commission Report is a summary of all the raw data, including thousands of papers in boxes at the National Archives. All we have is Paul Zelikow's word that he is correctly summarizing the data. The word "bought" is not enough to clarify the nature of the AA purchase. Critical thinkers know here are different ways to buy stocks and recognize such assumptions. Somewhere in those boxes should be the evidence to tell us whether the AA purchase was outright, or another put like UA.

we are not talking about the 9/11 commission report, but rather the SEC reports which were turned into the 911CR. There is a difference. (a big one).

I'm not saying that the AA purchase could not be a standard buy, just that we cannot ASSUME that it was, from the brief wording in the 9/11 Report. Zelikow wanted to keep the Report short. He did not leave the UA and AA transactions out of the Report, because he had to deal with them, or the Truthers would howl, because the 2 transactions were indeed suspicious.

If the US Based Institutional Investor gained money on UA and lost money on AA, then there was nothing suspicious, and no reason to even mention the transactions in the Report. Millions of unsuspicious transactions were not mentioned in the Report. Paul could have just said that the UA and AA purchases cancelled each other out, but he didn't. He had to mention them because they were suspicious.

Furthermore, Zelikow had to add the words "with no conceivable ties to Al Queda" when describing the USBIIWNCTTAQ, to try to make the investors look unsuspicious. Why add those words if the transactions were not suspicious?

If a man has nothing to hide, and goes on a flight, he simply tells the TSA "My name is Joe Smith" (or whatever) and boards. But if he says "My name is Joe Smith, with no conceivable ties to Al Queda" he is probably going to get a suspicious look from the TSA.

Handwaving and trying to imply something about the innocent here... Nice job.

ETA: This also provides information about the put options investigation... but doesn't speak about merrill lynch
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_App.pdf

 

[Dave Rogers]

Agreed, the average person would not. But Critical Thinkers, with above average comprehension skills and ability to recognize assumptions, know that the word "buying" is not sufficient, in the 9/11 Commission Report. Stocks can be bought in many ways, including pay now, and pay later. The Report is only a summary of thousands of papers in boxes at the National Archives. Somewhere in there should be the detailed evidence to clarify how the AA stocks were bought, whether outright, or a put option. That can make the difference between the investors making money, or losing money.

I see your ignorance of stock transactions is broader than I'd previously thought. If a stock is bought, it's bought at the price on the day, so money is lost if the stock falls whether the actual payment is immediate or deferred. A put option is not a stock purchase, and can't conceivably be described as one; it is an agreement with another party to sell a stock at a fixed price, whether or not the purchaser of the option holds any of that stock at the time the option is granted; usually, they won't. You're so desperate to twist a perfectly clear statement into its opposite, though, that you're now describing a sale option as a stock purchase. This is either outright dishonesty or financial illiteracy. Either way, your lack of understanding of the absolute basics here is so profound that nobody needs to take your question seriously.

Dave