Amazing "Coincidences"
Summary:
1. Put Options Placed on American and United Airlines
a. What Happened
b. Debunked?
2. "Pearl Harbor” Type Event Statement
3. Mysterious Travel Warnings
a. Willie Brown, Mayor [former] of New York
b. High-ranking Pentagon Officials
c. Salman Rushdie
4. Odigo IM Warning Two Hours Before Attack
5. Rumsfield "Misspeaks"
6. Flight Schools
7. Standing Orders for Hijacked Planes
Put Options Placed on American and United Airlines
What Happened. It was widely reported that there were put options put on both American and United airlines prior to the attacks, presumably to financial benefit those who supposedly knew the attacks were going to occurred and what airlines would be affected. Snopes outlines the events clearly:
“In the month prior to the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, unusual trading activity involving American and United Airlines stock was noted by market analysts who at the time had no idea what to make of it. Wildly unusual discrepancies in the put and call ratio — 25 to 100 times normal — were reportedly observed in stock options of the two airlines. In one case, Bloomberg's Trade Book electronic trading system identified option volume in UAL (parent of United Airlines) on 16 August 2001 that was 36 times higher than usual. (Options are wagers that the price of a 100-share block of a particular stock will rise or fall by a certain date. "Puts" are "shorts" — bets the stock price will fall. "Calls" are bets the price will rise. Thus, one who has reason to believe a particular company is about to suffer a terrible reversal of fortune would purchase "puts" against that entity's stock.) But it was during the final few trading days (the market closes on weekends) that the most unusual variances in activity occurred. Bloomberg data showed that on 6 September 2001, the Thursday before that black Tuesday, put-option volume in UAL stock was nearly 100 times higher than normal: 2,000 options versus 27 on the previous day. On 6 and 7 September 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange handled 4,744 put options for United Airlines' stock, translating into 474,000 shares, compared with just 396 call options, or 39,600 shares. On a day that the put-to-call ratio would normally have been expected to be roughly 1:1 (no negative news stories about United had broken), it was instead 12:1. On 10 September 2001, another uneventful news day, American Airlines' option volume was 4,516 puts and 748 calls, a ratio of 6:1 on yet another day when by rights these options should have been trading even. No other airline stocks were affected; only United and American were shorted in this fashion. Accelerated investments speculating a downturn in the value of Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch (two New York investment firms severely damaged by the World Trade Center attack) were also observed.” [1]
This suspicious flurry of equity- and bond-trading, in the shares of companies directly affected by the disasters, was discussed extensively in the news [2]. In a statement to the 9/11 Commission in 2003, Mindy Kleinberg of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, noted that:
"Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11th attacks. Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account."[3]
Debunked? There have been attempts to discredit the put options on these airlines[4]; however, they do so simply by citing the 9-11 Commission Report. For example, Snopes states:
“The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11, it was all coincidentally innocuous and not the result of insider trading by parties with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.”
However, let’s examine exactly what the Commission Report states:
“Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 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. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.”[5]
At first glance, this would seem sufficient- after all, they evaluated the trades as “coincidentally innocuous” and “not the result of insider trading”. However, the problem with the above investigation is that it focuses mainly on ascertaining if there was insider trading but completely fails to explain or address several crucial items:
1. Who were these undisclosed investors?
2. More importantly, what was their rationale for placing put options on these specific airlines?
3. Who faxed this trading newsletter, and what was their reasoning for these trade recommendations?Until these questions are answered, we cannot consider this a closed subject; this “investigation” fails to answer the critical questions of WHO was doing the trading and more importantly, WHY they did the trading on these specific airlines. Insider trading is not the sole concern regarding these put trades.
“Pearl Harbor” Type Event Statement
In Sep 2000, a military report called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century” recommended an overarching unified space command, but stated it was unlikely to happen without a “Pearl-Harbor” type event:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."[6]
Attempts to discredit this statement have been extreme; however, it can’t be denied that exactly that happened- a catastrophic event which brought together national unity and resulted in the Department of Homeland Security.
There were many, many individuals who received security warnings the night before or the morning of 9-11, regarding travel. When looking at the claims, debunkers quite legitimately note that the majority of warnings were “vague” so should be dismissed as proof that anyone knew about the events of 9-11 in advance. [Personally, I think this argument is a little weak- do you really think folks would have given specific warnings that might be able to be traced?] Debunkers do not usually address the basis for some official warnings. Given the timing, number “warned”, and roles of the individuals involved, I believe these claims should not be dismissed entirely. Individually they may not prove anything, but in aggregate there is sufficient cause to wonder.
Willie Brown, Mayor [former] of New York
Brown received a warning at approximately 10 PM on the evening of September 10 to be cautious about air travel. [He was scheduled to leave San Francisco at 0800 to fly to into New York City.] The mayor, who was booked to fly to New York yesterday morning from San Francisco International Airport, said the call "didn't come in any alarming fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make an alarming statement." He states that, at the time, he didn't pay it much mind. "It was not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful." The mayor would say only that it came from "my security people at the airport."[7] Some important questions that remain a mystery and yet to be explained are:
1. Exactly who did the call came from?
2. What was the basis for the security concern?
3. How often during this time period did you receive cautionary warnings of this type?
4. Who alerted your security personnel and where did their information come from?High-ranking Pentagon Officials
It was discovered that high-ranking pentagon officials cancelled travel plans for the morning of September 11th “…apparently because of security concerns.”[8] This raises some interesting questions. What exactly were these concerns and who raised them? Was this information shared with any other government agency?
The FAA refused to let author Salman Rushdie fly in North America starting the week before 9/11. From the Times of London:
"On September 3 the Federal Aviation Authority made an emergency ruling to prevent Mr Rushdie from flying unless airlines complied with strict and costly security measures. Mr Rushdie told The Times that the airlines would not upgrade their security. The FAA confirmed that it had banned Rushdie from flying in the US and Canada but refused to say why. The author himself--who is famously hated by Muslims for his novel The Satanic Verses--says he believes the authorities knew the attack was coming.”
So, why did the FAA ban Rushdie from flying? What was their basis?, Why was it so urgent that they had to get an emergency ruling?
Odigo IM Warning Two Hours Before Attack
Odigo is a company whose headquarters are located at 11 Broadway in New York- just a few blocks south of the World Trade Center complex and in the area that was blocked off for a time following the attacks. The FBI was investigating claims that two employees received a “nonspecific threat” warning via Instant Message (IM) two hours before the attack [9]. Interestingly enough, despite the fact these claims surfaced shortly after 9-11, there are no reports as to the conclusion of the FBI investigation- why? Who sent this warning? What was their rationale?
In Dec 2004, Rumsfield went on a surprise “Secret Santa” visit to troops in Iraq. While talking, he said the following:
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: “And to change that way of living, would strike at the very essence of our country. And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word "terrorized" is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be. And that is exactly what we cannot allow to happen.”[10]
A spokesman later said that Rumsfield had simply “misspoken”. This explanation simply doesn’t make sense. When people “misspeak”, they are normally speaking from incorrect or incomplete knowledge, or are confusing different events. First, as the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfield has detailed knowledge about the events of 9-11. Secondly, all four flights on 9-11 crashed; not even one came close to being shot down. So how can this be a case of confusing flights? This isn’t a case of Rumsfield “misspeaking” but blatantly coming up with something out of thin air. Or is he? Is it possible that, in the heat of the moment or by sheer accident, he spoke the truth? Many conspiracy proponents claim that flight 93 was shot down, since it left so late after its scheduled departure. I don’t know about that. However, this statement by Rumsfield is so odd, so left field, that saying he simply “misspoke” doesn’t make sense.
In a formal meeting between senior FBI agents and the 9/11 widows known as the "Jersey Girls", an interesting contradiction was noted:
Kristen Breitweiser asked: "I don’t understand, with all the warnings about the possibilities of Al Qaeda using planes as weapons, and the Phoenix Memo from one of your own agents warning that Osama bin Laden was sending operatives to this country for flight-school training, why didn’t you check out flight schools before Sept. 11?"
"Do you know how many flight schools there are in the US? Thousands," a senior agent protested. "We couldn’t have investigated them all and found these few guys."
"Wait, you just told me there were too many flight schools and that prohibited you from investigating them before 9/11," Kristen persisted. "How is it that a few hours after the attacks, the nation is brought to its knees, and miraculously FBI agents showed up at Embry-Riddle flight school in Florida where some of the terrorists trained?"
"We got lucky," was the reply.[11]
This is further collaborated by a Huffman manager [Atta's flight school]. He quit because he suspected Atta and his cadres were double agents. He claims that FBI agents showed up at his house less than four hours after the attack, to ensure he kept quiet about his previous suspicions. The following was described by investigative journalist Daniel Hopsicker in his book Welcome to Terrorland:
"A carload of FBI agents pulled up outside his house in the middle of the day, on the day of the attack. "They were outside my house four hours after the attack," he says. Hopsicker writes that "they didn't strong-arm him to make him think harder and cough up some useful leads, but to ensure he kept his mouth shut."
If this claim is true, not only is the attempt at intimidation interesting, but the fact the FBI agents showed up at his house four hours after the attack.
What is more likely- that the FBI had truly amazing “lucky” breaks, or more likely, the FBI already had these specific schools under observation? Given the intimidation claims, it seems that the later is more likely.
Standing Orders for Hijacked Planes
On June 1st, 2001, the standing order which covered the shooting down of hijacked aircraft was altered, taking discretion away from field commanders and placing it solely in the hands of the Secretary of Defense [12]; the order was then rescinded shortly after 9/11. This is an amazing coincidence given the testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, as described by Mrs. Honegger:
“It is significant that the The 9/11 Commission Report ignores the testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta to its own commission and did this only for the testimony of Secretary Mineta. The portion of Mineta’s testimony that is particularly dangerous is his claim that Vice President Cheney, in charge in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) beneath the White House since before Mineta arrived in the PEOC at 9:20, insisted to an incredulous “young man” that “the orders (given earlier by Cheney to this same individual) still stand” when the man told Cheney that the presumed plane they had been tracking as a blip on a screen was 50, then 30, and finally just 10 miles from Washington—orders which could only have been not to shoot down the plane. Otherwise there would have been no reason for the agent to ask Cheney if they “still” stood, despite the plane’s being almost upon the capital where Cheney himself was."[13]
References:
[1] Snopes.com
[2] San Francisco Chronicle- http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/1... and CNN- http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/24/gen.europe.shortse...
[3] http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_kleinberg.htm
[4] Snopes.com- http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp and 911myths.com- http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html
[5] 9-11 Commission Report, pg. 499
[6] 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century', page 51, published by PNAC – available online at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
[7] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/0...
[8] Multiple news sources; most notable Newsweek, September 24, 2001 issue
[9] http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/IDG010928IMwarning/ or http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/09/28/010928hnodigo.html
[10] http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/24/nfcnn.01.html
[11] The New York Observer, author Gail Sheehy, August 25 2003
[12] http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d302515_021897/d302515p.pdf
[13] http://physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf