List of Research Papers

[triforcharity]

Report from the SEC on the put options.

http://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/9-11-sec-report.pdf

Cheers!

 

[twinstead]

The put options would need to be investigated anyway, and they were indeed because somebody had to have advance knowledge of 9/11, even if they were the terrorists themselves, didn't they? It turns out that they really weren't suspicious at all.

 

[The Almond]

Since you don't seem to be aware of very basic information about who has signed their name to a petition calling for a new investigation, you will likewise have no clue what campaigns truth supporters have already funded and are continuing to fund. 9/11 truth isn't a private club that asks for membership dues. It's not a single group. Your comment here is misinformed and irrelevant.

There are 1,460 who have publicly stated their disagreement with the official story. So, yes, there are many, many, professionals in these fields who are asking for a realistic explanation.

I might be tardy to the party on this one, but I think we need to address this point again. By your own admission, it is incorrect to refer to AE911 as a cohesive group. Indeed, they have no group or incorporated structure at all.

I belong to a relatively small professional society of about 400 dues paying members. We have yearly elections for officer positions, we have a constitution, we have a mission statement and we have a yearly business meeting where society direction is determined through consensus and referendum. Because of all this organization, our society has provided 8 partial scholarships for students studying chemistry and materials science, and we've supported 4 international meetings, providing travel support to dozens of researchers from around the world. Our members publish about 50 papers per year (with the members being the first author) in peer reviewed, high impact factor journals.

In short, we actually do stuff. We have goals, and we accomplish them.

By comparison AE911 has never held elections. They have no documents of incorporation, no bylaws and no input from membership. None of the members, outside of a handful of charlatans, have ever produced a document stating their scientific conclusions regarding 9/11. This, from an organization 3 times larger than mine. If AE911 is a professional society, then its strength can be measured by contributed research papers. If AE911 is an advocacy group, then success could be measured by what proportion of the members are involved in advocacy. If AE911 is a lobbying group, then its importance could be judged by how much legislative and executive action it has generated.

Of course, if AE911 is an advocacy group, then the qualifications of the members matter very little and the extent of their public advocacy is limited to a tiny proportion of the group. If AE911 is a lobbying group, it's incredibly ineffective. If AE911 is a professional society, it is a dismal failure.

You're right, ergo. 911 Truth is not a private club. But it is a disorganized, loose confederation of idiots that has utterly failed at everything. Organization is the 0th step in getting something done. It is silly to pretend that the lack of organization in the Truth movement is anything but its greatest weakness. You need bylaws, you need officers, you need volunteers. Richard Gage knows this. He's a member of AIA, but he's also not an idiot. Gage knows that there is no consensus within the Truth movement, and any attempt at organization would fracture and destroy the movement. What works for my society and for the AIA won't work for the Truth movement, can you figure out why?

How should we treat the total number of members of a loosely collected internet petition? It is a number, and nothing more.

 

[TruthersLie]

So, if the buyers of the Put Options on AA and UA had "no conceivable ties to Al Queda" then what, Critical Thinkers?

Hello! Maybe there is another possibility here!

That's like Keystone Kops investigating a 7-11 robbery with the foregone assumption that Gang X did it, based on a tip. They stop a fleeing suspect with a Slurpee, and find stacks of money on him, but conclude "Well, he's not a member of Gang X, so we gotta let him go!"

[facepalm}

Great...

So now the SEC is in on it too...

man oh man this conspiracy just keeps on growing and growing... it is amazing.

When 95% of the put orders are bought by ONE COMPANY, was Merryl Lynch in on it too???

 

[Dave Rogers]

For example, in the Materials Science study Cherepanov writes "It is proved that progressive collapse is much slower than free fall." Truthers agree.

As, indeed, were the progressive collapses of the Twin Towers.

Cherepanov's papers, though, should not be taken seriously. They are, in fact, the worst kind of pseudoscience; the author starts from a pair of incorrect premises (the collapses started at rooftop level and progressed at freefall acceleration) and reasons from them to a conclusion (that the structures of both towers shattered at the instant of collapse initiation) that directly contradicts the most basic observation about the collapses (that the lower structure of the towers was visibly intact until it was reached by the crush-down zone) in order to falsely support the author's personal delusion (that all high-rise buildings are inherently highly dangerous). It's absurd, self-contradictory, worthless rubbish.

But, of course, it's more intellectually respectable than anything the truth movement has ever produced, given that it somehow passed a genuine peer review.

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

[facepalm}

Great...

So now the SEC is in on it too...

man oh man this conspiracy just keeps on growing and growing... it is amazing.

When 95% of the put orders are bought by ONE COMPANY, was Merryl Lynch in on it too???

That's the Inflationary Model of Cpnspiracy Theories again.

"A Good Theory can be distinguished from a Conspiracy Theory as follows: When repeatedly exposed to scrutiny, the Conspiracy Theory requires more and more people involved, and more and more extraordinary events in order to prevent self-contradiction. A Good Theory, in contrast, remains approximately static in complexity as it is refined."

Thankfully, this can't go on forever.

The Inflationary Limit of Conspiracy Theories is reached when it requires those questioning the conspiracy theory to be a part of the conspiracy. This final excuse occurs because any alternate hypothesis, no matter how well it fits the known facts, is viewed as a threat to the conspiracy hypothesis. No further inflation is possible because, when this point is reached, any criticism is considered suspect -- thus encompassing the entire world outside the conspiracy hypothesis.

Conversely, reaching the Inflationary Limit logically implies that any alternate hypothesis is superior to the conspiracy hypothesis.

Therefore, a conspiracy theory that reaches the Inflationary Limit is by definition the worst of all possible hypotheses.

All he's got to do is just keep on going. He's already heading in this direction. And note that this behavior was described back in 2007, thus demonstrating that truthers are indeed nothing more than an open books.

 

[The Big Dog]

So, if the buyers of the Put Options on AA and UA had "no conceivable ties to Al Queda" then what, Critical Thinkers?

Hello! Maybe there is another possibility here!

That's like Keystone Kops investigating a 7-11 robbery with the foregone assumption that Gang X did it, based on a tip. They stop a fleeing suspect with a Slurpee, and find stacks of money on him, but conclude "Well, he's not a member of Gang X, so we gotta let him go!"

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.

I made that a wee bit bigger for you. Can you see that now? Good that is called a hedge. You should really learn what that means because once you learn what that means, you will understand why your post is laughably wrong.

Here is what you should have written: That's like Keystone Kops investigating a 7-11 robbery. They stop a fleeing suspect with a Slurpee, and and a receipt, and change from the twenty dollar bill he gave the clerk, and the clerk testified that he had sold the slurpee to the man, and the man had repeatedly bought the same type of slurpee there 1000 times before.

freaking truthers don't understand basic finance. Sigh.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Put Options on American and United Airlines prior to 9/11

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. I made that a wee bit bigger for you. Can you see that now? Good that is called a hedge.

Why were the major puts on UA and AA (the 2 airlines involved in 9/11) and not other airlines, over 100 of them, such as Delta Airlines? The investor did NOT do similar trades 1000 times before, so your analogy is not relevant. The bigger your text, the more obvious your failing argument. The AA Puts help my argument, that there was trading based on prior knowledge of 9/11, not yours.

Since you are financial guy, what is your analysis of the reports of Peter Jennings of ABC, and Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Financial News, that there were 90 times more puts in 1 day than in the prior 3 weeks?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76ZVvMU4UO4&feature=player_embedded

 

[The Big Dog]

Why were the puts on UA and AA and not other airlines, such as Delta Airlines? The bigger your text, the more obvious your failing argument.

Explain this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76ZVvMU4UO4&feature=player_embedded

Hmmm, the text was bigger, because you intentionally ignored it.

You've now ignored it TWICE. Repeat after me: the U.S.-based institutional investor was LONG, in other words, owned 115,000 shares of American that were purchased on September 10.

Please indicate to us that you know what a hedge means. Please? A grunt would suffice. Anything, because to someone with even a basic understanding of what a hedge is would know that you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

C'mon big guy, a hedge?

/I do enjoy how he puts up a You Tubey asking me to "explain this" that references the UAL puts that we have already explained were part of a hedge. Words fail me.

 

[TruthersLie]

Why were the major puts on UA and AA and not other airlines, over 100 of them, such as Delta Airlines? The investor did NOT do similar trades 1000 times before, so your analogy is not relevant. The bigger your text, the more obvious your failing argument.

What is your analysis of the reports of Peter Jennings of ABC, and Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Financial News, that there were 90 times more puts in 1 day than in the prior weeks?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76ZVvMU4UO4&feature=player_embedded

did you even bother to READ the link I provided?

Did you even bother to go and READ the SEC report?

Didn't think so.

Try again. Twoofs have tried this one since 2004... and it was pwned then too.

So was merryl Lynch in on it? Yes or no?

 

[DGM]

did you even bother to READ the link I provided?

Did you even bother to go and READ the SEC report?

Did you check to see if the "truth" allows him to read these links?


FAIL!

 

[TruthersLie]

Did you check to see if the "truth" allows him to read these links?


FAIL!

Personally I think the problem is that I was pointing him to things to READ. Not to some youtube video...

go figure. That they bougth PUT orders on two airlines which were having financial troubles in the preceeding months, who were losing money.

And at the same time, they bought actual shares in one of the airlines... which ment that they LOST money on the deal.

But hey go figure.

Next he will be rambling on about a missing $2.3 Trillion, or a $180 billion in gold missing from the vaults below the towers....

 

[The Big Dog]

Wait, was Cicorp the guy with the hilarious wig?

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

did you even bother to READ the link I provided?
Did you even bother to go and READ the SEC report? Didn't think so.

Do you always answer your Unwarranted Assumption questions?

You posted the link yesterday. It is a 20 page report, and not the most exciting thing to read. Hey, I have a job and life outside JREF. But several questions stand out so far:

1. Eight (8) paragraphs of the SEC Report are redacted. Completely blacked out sections. Come on. This report is about 10 year old transactions. What could be so secret now? What are they hiding?

2. We do not get to know who the Investigators were, or what their qualifications are, or their affiliations with the suspect Traders. Remember, some Investigators have been accused of being in cahoots with Traders in the past. But let us assume for the sake of this argument that they are honest Investigators...

3. These unknown (to us) Investigators claim that:

"We were able to determine - either through direct communication with those responsible for the trading or a review of trading records - that the trading was consistent with a legitimate trading strategy."

Many say that making as much money as possible, even when others suffer, is "a legitimate trading strategy". So this phrase is open to interpretation.

4. We are not told WHY the Investigators determined the transactions to be "legitimate". What are their reasons for their conclusions? Perhaps we don't agree. This would take more than 20 pages.

5. We are not provided the transcripts of the conversations between the Investigators and the Traders. We are asked to just take "their word for it" that there was "nothing suspicious".

Remember that many Traders are sly and make their living talking people in to things. What if the Traders were poker faced liars, and good at talking their way out of things? If the Investigators were as sly, they would probably be rich Traders too.

Just some thoughts. I'll keep reading this exciting SEC Report as time permits.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Hmmm, the text was bigger, because you intentionally ignored it.

Not ignoring. It has only been less than a day since your post, and I have a life outside JREF. Sorry to keep you waiting at your computer.

Repeat after me: the U.S.-based institutional investor was LONG, in other words, owned 115,000 shares of American that were purchased on September 10.

No. I won't repeat your statement, because it seems UA and AA were BOTH puts, similar to short sales. That explains why the transactions are considered suspicious by so many people, including main stream news. You claim the AA purchase was a counter-balancing hedge against the UA put/purchase, which would not be suspicious.

"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."

The key word here is "buying". The Commission should have clarified how the AA shares were bought. You assume that the AA purchase was a regular buy, while UA was a buy via a put option.

According to 9/11 Myths, a debunker site, there is no mention that the AA purchase was a hedge for the UA put transaction, as you posit. Both the AA and UA transactions are described as puts in http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html
and of course http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

The "single U.S.-based institutional investor" who purchased the UA stock was Deutsche Bank Alex Brown (DBAB) or one of its customers, according to Kevin Ryan.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...ormed-trading-on-the-attacks-of-september-11/

We need a source with details to confirm whether that same investor (DBAB), also bought AA. The 9/11 Report only gives general statements about this, without naming names. Does "as part of a trading strategy" mean that DBAB actually bought AA, or that it was just DBAB's plan to buy on September 10?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I won't repeat your statement, because UA and AA were BOTH puts, similar to short sales.

Are you lying, or just too stupid to understand the words? The investor who bought UA put options on September 6th also bought AA shares on September 10th. It was not a put option, it was a share purchase; that means buying the shares outright. Those AA shares immediately went down in value as a result of 9/11. The investor, therefore, lost money on the AA shares.

Is that simple enough yet?

Dave

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

The investor who bought UA put options on September 6th also bought AA shares on September 10th. It was not a put option, it was a share purchase; that means buying the shares outright.

About your assumptions: Who was the "U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda" (USBIIWNCTTAQ)? How do you know the AA transaction was outright and not a put, or that it was executed at all? How do you know it was the same investor who purchased the UA? What is your source? Any critical thinkers have a URL please?

Paul Zelikow's 9/11 Commission Report is a cleverly crafted work of often unsourced, nebulous assertions, conveniently leaving out "small details" such as WTC 7 and Mineta's testimony.

Instead of saying "...as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115000 shares...", why didn't Zelikow simply say "a US based institutional investor bought 95% of the UAL put options on September 6, and 115000 shares of American outright on September 10." How about one word "and", instead of 10 words? Smell a smoke screen?

It open to interpretation, like telling my wife: "I bought Nike sneakers for me, as part of a trading strategy that included buying Gucci shoes for you."

 

[Dave Rogers]

About your assumptions: Who was the "U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda"? How do you know the AA transaction actually occurred? Was it was the same investor who purchased the UA? What is your source? URL please.

I'm not making assumptions. I'm reading a piece of text, comprehending it, and explaining to you what it says.

The 911 Commission report is a carefully crafted work of often nebulous statements. Instead of saying "as part of a trading strategy that also included buying" why don't they simply say the investor "bought UA put options on September 6, and AA shares outright on September 10."

Because no reasonable person with average comprehension skills could honestly interpret the statement any other way than that the 10th September purchase actually occurred. Only someone specifically trying to twist the meaning of the statement would think otherwise. So what it boils down to is that you're criticising the 9/11 Commission for not taking enough trouble to prevent people like you wilfully misrepresenting their findings. It's a bit like a car thief criticising his victim for not fitting an engine immobiliser.

It open to interpretation, like telling my wife: "I bought Nike sneakers for me, as part of a strategy to buy Gucci shoes for you."

Even your analogies are dishonest. Buying AA shares wasn't the purpose of the strategy, nor was it referenced as a hypothetical. It's more like saying to your wife, "I bought Nike sneakers for me, as part of a strategy that also involved buying Gucci shoes for you two days before your birthday." But I'm sure you'll pretend you can't see the difference.

Poor reading comprehension: powering the truth movement since 2002.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

Do you always answer your Unwarranted Assumption questions?

It isn't an unwarranted assumption. I posted a very easy to understand SEC report, and the 911myths debunking (which is easier to understand). To which you replied with BS garbage. If you had managed to READ the link you would have had your answer.

Since you posted garbage it showed you didn't even bother to READ it.

You posted the link yesterday. It is a 20 page report, and not the most exciting thing to read. Hey, I have a job and life outside JREF. But several questions stand out so far:

But you had plenty of time to keep on posting GARBAGE that is shown to be inaccurate before you even bothered to READ the flipping information. Just like a twoof.

1. Eight (8) paragraphs of the SEC Report are redacted. Completely blacked out sections. Come on. This report is about 10 year old transactions. What could be so secret now? What are they hiding?

OMG... it must be the 8 paragraphs which detail how the filthy jews managed to get merryl lynch involved in the insider trading on 9/11 which LOST them money...

2. We do not get to know who the Investigators were, or what their qualifications are, or their affiliations with the suspect Traders. Remember, some Investigators have been accused of being in cahoots with Traders in the past. But let us assume for the sake of this argument that they are honest Investigators...

ROFLMAO. Yes.. the men in black completed the report... it is an official SEC investigation with their findings published by law. Are they in on the plot now too?

3. These unknown (to us)highly trained SEC Investigators claim that:

FIFY

"We were able to determine - either through direct communication with those responsible for the trading or a review of trading records - that the trading was consistent with a legitimate trading strategy."

Many say that making as much money as possible, even when others suffer, is "a legitimate trading strategy". So this phrase is open to interpretation.

ROFLMAO!!!!
You obviously do not understand how mutual funds work, nor do you understand finance.

There is NO "open to interpretation" there... It is cut and dried. Handwave noted.

4. We are not told WHY the Investigators determined the transactions to be "legitimate". What are their reasons for their conclusions? Perhaps we don't agree. This would take more than 20 pages.

It is in the FULL SEC investigation. Try to read it. The SEC did an investigation of the people involved (you know that ONE company which bought 95% of the put orders... a MUTUAL FUND company. Your lack of understanding of Mutual funds and Hedge funds is rather amusing. Twisting in the wind noted.

5. We are not provided the transcripts of the conversations between the Investigators and the Traders. We are asked to just take "their word for it" that there was "nothing suspicious".

You don't need to be. But if you insist you can feel free to FOIA them from the SEC. Feel free.

We take their word for it because they are the federal government who is incharge of the investigations into the business world. Their information is admissable in a court of law... that makes their investigation rather important and their findings even more so.

Remember that many Traders are sly and make their living talking people in to things. What if the Traders were poker faced liars, and good at talking their way out of things? If the Investigators were as sly, they would probably be rich Traders too.

ROFLMAO. So they are part of the conspiracy now too... Wowsers.

Here is something you may not understand about federal regulators and investigators... they really do know how to do their jobs. They start with the paper trails. From the paper they then question everyone.

Stick a fork in your attempts to twist the put orders... it is done.

Just some thoughts. I'll keep reading this exciting SEC Report as time permits.

Just stop stating the same debunked ******** until you have managed to READ the freaking SEC reports which show that there was NO insider trading on 9/11.

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

 

[Oystein]

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?