Just after September 11th
2001, many governments began investigations into possible insider
trading related to the terrorist attacks of that day. Such
investigations were initiated by the governments of Belgium, Cyprus,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Monte Carlo, the Netherlands,
Switzerland, the United States, and others. Although the investigators
were clearly concerned about insider trading, and considerable evidence
did exist, none of the investigations resulted in a single indictment.
That’s because the people identified as having been involved in the
suspicious trades were seen as unlikely to have been associated with
those alleged to have committed the 9/11 crimes.
This is an example of the circular logic often used by those who
created the official explanations for 9/11. The reasoning goes like
this: if we assume that we know who the perpetrators were (i.e. the
popular version of “al Qaeda”) and those who were involved in the trades
did not appear to be connected to those assumed perpetrators, then
insider trading did not occur.
That’s basically what the 9/11 Commission told us. The Commission
concluded that “exhaustive investigations” by the SEC and the FBI
“uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks
profited through securities transactions.” What they meant was that
someone did profit through securities transactions but, based on the
Commission’s assumptions of guilt, those who profited were not
associated with those who were guilty of conducting the attacks. In a
footnote, the Commission report acknowledged “highly suspicious trading
on its face,” but said that this trading on United Airlines was traced
back to “A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable
ties to al Qaeda.”[1]
With respect to insider trading, or what is more technically called
informed trading, the Commission report was itself suspect for several
reasons. First, the informed trades relating to 9/11 covered far more
than just airline company stock. The stocks of financial and
reinsurance companies, as well as other financial vehicles, were
identified as being associated with suspicious trades. Huge credit card
transactions, completed just before the attacks, were also involved.
The Commission ultimately tried to frame all of this highly suspicious
trading in terms of a series of misunderstandings. However, the
possibility that so many leading financial experts were so completely
wrong is doubtful at best and, if true, would constitute another
unbelievable scenario in the already highly improbable sequence of
events represented by the official story of 9/11.
In the last few years, new evidence has come to light on these
matters. In 2006 and 2010, financial experts at a number of
universities have established new evidence, through statistical
analyses, that informed trades did occur with respect to the 9/11
attacks. Additionally, in 2007, the 911 Commission released a
memorandum summary of the FBI investigations on which its report was
based.[2] A careful review of this memorandum indicates that some of the
people who were briefly investigated by the FBI, and then acquitted
without due diligence, had links to al Qaeda and to US intelligence
agencies. Although the elapsed time between the informed trades and
these new confirmations might prevent legal action against the guilty,
the facts of the matter can help lead us to the truth about 9/11.
Early signs
Within a week of the attacks, Germany’s stock market regulator, BAWe,
began looking into claims of suspicious trading.[3] That same week,
Italy’s foreign minister, Antonio Martino, made it clear that he had
concerns by issuing this public statement: “I think that there are
terrorist states and organisations behind speculation on the
international markets.”[4]
Within two weeks of the attacks, CNN reported that regulators were
seeing “ever-clearer signs” that someone “manipulated financial markets
ahead of the terror attack in the hope of profiting from it.” Belgian
Finance Minister, Didier Reynders, said that there were strong
suspicions that British markets were used for transactions.[5] The CIA
was reported to have asked the British regulators to investigate some of
the trades.[6] Unfortunately, the British regulator, The Financial
Services Authority, wrote off its investigation by simply clearing “bin
Laden and his henchmen of insider trading.”[7]
Conversely, German central bank president, Ernst Welteke, said his
bank conducted a study that strongly indicated “terrorism insider
trading” associated with 9/11. He stated that his researchers had found
“almost irrefutable proof of insider trading.”[8] Welteke suggested
that the insider trading occurred not only in shares of companies
affected by the attacks, such as airlines and insurance companies, but
also in gold and oil. [9]
The extent of the 9/11-related informed trading was unprecedented.
An ABC News Consultant, Jonathan Winer, said, “it’s absolutely
unprecedented to see cases of insider trading covering the entire world
from Japan to the US to North America to Europe.”[10]
By October 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) and the
four other options exchanges in the US had joined forces with the FBI
and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to investigate a list
of 38 stocks, as well as multiple options and Treasury bonds, that were
flagged in relation to potential informed trades. SEC Chairman Harvey
Pitt gave testimony to the House Financial Services Committee at the
time, saying, “We will do everything in our power to track those people
down and bring them to justice.”[11]
Mary Bender, chief regulatory officer at the CBOE, stated “We’ve
never really had anything like this, [the option exchanges are] using
the same investigative tools as we would in an insider-trading case. The
point is to find people who are connected to these heinous crimes.”
The people ultimately found included an unnamed customer of Deutsche
Bank Alex. Brown (DBAB). This involved a trade on United Airlines (UAL)
stock consisting of a 2,500-contract order that was, for some reason,
split into chunks of 500 contracts each and then directed to multiple
exchanges around the country simultaneously.[12] When the 9/11
Commission report pointed to a “single U.S.-based institutional investor
with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda,” it was referring to either DBAB
or its customer in that questionable trade.
Michael Ruppert has since written about DBAB, noting that the company
had previously been a financier of The Carlyle Group and also of Brown
Brothers Harriman, both of which are companies closely related to the
Bush family. Ruppert also noted that Alex. Brown, the company purchased
by Deutsche Bank to become DBAB, was managed by A.B. (Buzzy) Krongard,
who left the firm in 1998 to join the CIA as counsel to director George
Tenet.[13] Krongard had been a consultant to CIA director James Woolsey
in the mid 1990s and, on September 11th, he was the Executive Director of the CIA, the third highest position in the agency.
Stock and Treasury bonds traded
In 2002, investigator Kyle Hence wrote about the stocks involved in
the SEC’s target list. Those that had the highest examples of trade
volume over the average were UAL [285 times over average], Marsh &
McLennan (Marsh) [93 times over average], American Airlines (AMR) [60
times over average], and Citigroup [45 times over average].[14] Other
stocks flagged included financial firms, defense-related companies, and
the reinsurance firms Munich Re, Swiss Re and the AXA Group. Put
options for these reinsurance firms, or bets that the stock would drop,
were placed at double the normal levels in the few days before the
attacks. Regulators were concerned about “large block trades” on these
stocks because the three firms were liable for billions in insurance
payouts due to the damage inflicted on 9/11.[15]
The four highest-volume suspect stocks — UAL, Marsh, AMR and
Citigroup — were closely linked to the attacks of 9/11. The two airline
companies each had two planes hijacked and destroyed. Marsh was
located in the exact 8 floors out of 110 in the north tower of the WTC
where Flight 11 impacted and the fires occurred. Citigroup was the
parent of Travelers Insurance, which was expected to see $500 million in
claims, and also Salomon Smith Barney, which occupied all but ten
floors in World Trade Center (WTC) building 7. Oddly enough, Salomon
Smith Barney had both Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney on its advisory
board until January 2001.
Marsh occupied a number of floors in the south tower as well. This
is where the office of Marsh executive, L. Paul Bremer, was located.
Bremer was a former managing director at Kissinger Associates and had
just completed leading a national terrorism commission in 2000. The San
Francisco Chronicle noted that Bremer was a source of early claims that
rich Arabs were financing Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network. In an
article on the 9/11 informed trades, the Chronicle reported that “The
former chairman of the State Department’s National Commission on
Terrorism, L. Paul Bremer, said he obtained classified government
analyses early last year of bin Laden’s finances confirming the
assistance of affluent Middle Easterners.”[16]
On the day of 9/11, Bremer was interviewed by NBC News and stated
that he believed Osama bin Laden was responsible and that possibly Iraq
and Iran were involved too, and he called for the most severe military
response possible. For unknown reasons, Google removed the interview
video from its servers three times, and blocked it once.[17]
The trading of Treasury bonds just before 9/11 was also flagged as
being suspicious. Reporters from The Wall street Journal wrote that the
“U.S. Secret Service contacted a number of bond traders regarding large
purchases of five-year Treasury notes before the attacks, according to
people familiar with the probe. The investigators, acting on a tip from
traders, are examining whether terrorists, or people affiliated with
terrorist organizations, bought five-year notes, including a single $5
billion trade.”[18]
Some reports claimed that the 9/11 informed trades were such that
millions of dollars were made, and some of that went unclaimed. [19]
Others suggested that the trades resulted in the winning of billions of
dollars in profits. One such suggestion was made by the former German
Minister of Technology, Andreas von Buelow, who said that the value of
the informed trades was on the order of $15 billion.[20]
The FBI Investigations
In May 2007, a 9/11 Commission document that summarized the FBI
investigations into potential 9/11-related informed trading was
declassified. [21] This document was redacted to remove the names of two
FBI agents from the New York office, and to remove the names of select
suspects in the informed trading investigations. The names of other FBI
agents and suspects were left in. Regardless, some information can be
gleaned from the document to help reveal the trades and traders
investigated.
On September 21, 2001, the SEC referred two specific transactions to
the FBI for criminal investigation as potential informed trades. One of
those trades was a September 6, 2001 purchase of 56,000 shares of a
company called Stratesec, which in the few years before 9/11 was a
security contractor for several of the facilities that were compromised
on 9/11. These facilities included the WTC buildings, Dulles airport,
where American Airlines Flight 77 took off, and also United Airlines,
which owned two of the other three ill-fated planes.
The affected 56,000 shares of Stratesec stock were purchased by a
director of the company, Wirt D. Walker III, and his wife Sally Walker.
This is clear from the memorandum generated to record the FBI summary
of the trades investigated.[22] The Stratesec stock that the Walkers
purchased doubled in value in the one trading day between September 11th
and when the stock market reopened on September 17th. The Commission
memorandum suggests that the trade generated a profit of $50,000 for the
Walkers. Unfortunately, the FBI did not interview either of the
Walkers and they were both cleared of any wrongdoing because they were
said to have “no ties to terrorism or other negative information.” [23]
However, Wirt Walker was connected to people who had connections to
al Qaeda. For example, Stratesec director James Abrahamson was the
business partner of Mansoor Ijaz, who claimed on several occasions to be
able to contact Osama bin Laden.[24] Additionally, Walker hired a
number of Stratesec employees away from a subsidiary of The Carlyle
Group called BDM International, which ran secret (black) projects for
government agencies. The Carlyle Group was partly financed by members
of the bin Laden family.[25] Mr. Walker ran a number of suspicious
companies that went bankrupt, including Stratesec, some of which were
underwritten by a company run by a first cousin of former CIA director
(and President) George H.W. Bush. Additionally, Walker was the child of
a CIA employee and his first job was at an investment firm run by
former US intelligence guru, James “Russ” Forgan, where he worked with
another former CIA director, William Casey.[26] Of course, Osama bin
Laden had links to the CIA as well.[27]
Another trade investigated by the FBI, on request from the SEC,
focused on Amir Ibrahim Elgindy, an Egyptian-born, San Diego stock
advisor who on the day before 9/11 had allegedly attempted to liquidate
$300,000 in assets through his broker at Salomon Smith Barney. During
the attempted liquidation, Elgindy was said to have “predicted that the
Dow Jones industrial average, which at the time stood at about 9,600,
would soon crash to below 3,000.”[28]
The 9/11 Commission memorandum suggests that the FBI never
interviewed Mr. Elgindy either, and had planned to exonerate him because
there was “no evidence he was seeking to establish a position whereby
he would profit from the terrorist attacks.” Apparently, the prediction
of a precipitous drop in the stock market, centered on the events of
9/11, was not sufficient cause for the FBI to interview the suspect.
In late May 2002, Elgindy was arrested along with four
others, including an FBI agent and a former FBI agent, and charged with
conspiracy to manipulate stock prices and extort money from companies.
The FBI agents, Jeffrey A Royer and Lynn Wingate, were said to have
“used their access to F.B.I. databases to monitor the progress of the
criminal investigation against Mr. Elgindy.”[29] A federal prosecutor
later accused Elgindy, who also went by several aliases, of having prior
knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Although the judge in that case did not
agree with the prosecutor on the 9/11 informed trading accusation, Mr.
Elgindy was eventually convicted, in 2005, of multiple crimes including
racketeering, securities fraud, and making false statements.
The Boston office of the FBI investigated stock trades
related to two companies. The first was Viisage Technologies, a facial
recognition company that stood to benefit from an increase in terrorism
legislation. The Viisage purchase, made by a former employee of the
Saudi American Bank, “revealed no connection with 9/11.” However, the
Saudi American Bank was named in a lawsuit brought by the 9/11 victims’
families due to the bank having — “financed development projects in
Sudan benefiting bin Laden in the early 1990s.”[30]
The second company investigated by the Boston FBI office was
Wellington Management, a company that allegedly held a large account
for Osama bin Laden. The FBI found that Wellington Management
maintained an account for “members of the bin Laden family” but dropped
the investigation because it could not link this to “Osama, al Qaeda, or
terrorism.”[31]
Although the connections to al Qaeda in three of these cases
(Walker, the Viisage trader, and Wellington Management) can be seen as
circumstantial, the amount of such evidence is considerable. The
quality of the FBI investigations, considering the suspects were not
even interviewed, was therefore much less than “exhaustive”, as the 9/11
Commission characterized it.
The summary of FBI investigations released by the 9/11 Commission
also described how the Commission questioned the FBI about damaged
computer hard drives that might have been recovered from the WTC. This
questioning was the result of “press reports [contending] that large
volumes of suspicious transactions flowed through the computers housed
in the WTC on the morning of 9/11 as part of some illicit but
ill-defined effort to profit from the attacks.”[32] The Commission came
to the conclusion that no such activity occurred because “the assembled
agents expressed no knowledge of the reported hard-drive recovery
effort” and “everything at the WTC was pulverized to near powder, making
it extremely unlikely that any hard-drives survived.”
The truth, however, is that many such hard-drives were recovered from
the WTC and were sent to specialist companies to be cleaned and have
data recovered. A German company named Convar did a good deal of the
recovery work.
In December 2001, Reuters reported that “Convar has recovered
information from 32 computers that support assumptions of dirty doomsday
dealings.” Richard Wagner, a data retrieval expert at Convar, testified
that “There is a suspicion that some people had advance knowledge of
the approximate time of the plane crashes in order to move out amounts
exceeding $100 million. They thought that the records of their
transactions could not be traced after the main frames were destroyed.”
Director of Convar, Peter Henschel, said that it was “not only the
volume, but the size of the transactions [that] was far higher than
usual for a day like that.”[33]
By late December 2001, Convar had completed processing 39 out of 81
drives, and expected to receive 20 more WTC hard drives the next month.
Obviously, the 911 Commission memorandum drafted in August 2003 was not
particularly reliable considering it reported that the FBI and the 911
Commission had no knowledge of any of this.
Statistical confirmations
Considering that the FBI and 9/11 Commission overlooked the
suspicious connections of informed trading suspects like Wirt Walker,
and also claimed in 2003 to have no knowledge of hard drive recoveries
publicly reported in 2001, we must assume that they did a poor job of
investigating. Today, however, we know that several peer-reviewed
academic papers have reported solid evidence that informed trades did
occur. That is, the conclusions reached by the official investigations
have now been shown, through scientific analysis, to be quite wrong.
In 2006, a professor of Finance from the University of Illinois named
Allen Poteshman published an analysis of the airline stock option
trades preceding the attacks. This study came to the conclusion that an
indicator of long put volume was “unusually high which is consistent
with informed investors having traded in the option market in advance of
the attacks.”[34] Long puts are bets that a stock or option will fall
in price.
The unusually high volume of long puts, purchased on UAL and AMR
stock before these stocks declined dramatically due to the 9/11 attacks,
are evidence that the traders knew that the stocks would decline.
Using statistical techniques to evaluate conditional and unconditional
distributions of historical stock option activity, Professor Poteshman
showed that the data indicate that informed trading did occur.
In January 2010, a team of financial experts from Switzerland
published evidence for at least thirteen informed trades in which the
investors appeared to have had foreknowledge of the attacks. This study
focused again on a limited number of companies but, of those, the
informed trades centered on five airline companies and four financial
companies. The airline companies were American Airlines, United
Airlines and Boeing. Three of the financial companies involved were
located in the WTC towers and the fourth was Citigroup, which stood to
lose doubly as the parent of both Travelers Insurance and the WTC 7
tenant, Salomon Smith Barney.[35]
More recently, in April 2010, an international team of experts
examined trading activities of options on the Standard & Poors 500
index, as well as a volatility index of the CBOE called VIX. These
researchers showed that there was a significant abnormal increase in
trading volume in the option market just before the 9/11 attacks, and
they demonstrated that this was in contrast to the absence of abnormal
trading volume over periods long before the attacks. The study also
showed that the relevant abnormal increase in trading volume was not
simply due to a declining market.[36] Their findings were “consistent
with insiders anticipating the 9-11 attacks.”
Conclusion
In the early days just after 9/11, financial regulators around the
world gave testimony to unprecedented evidence for informed trading
related to the terrorist attacks of that day. One central bank
president (Welteke) said there was irrefutable proof of such trading.
This evidence led US regulators to vow, in Congressional testimony, to
bring those responsible to justice. Those vows were not fulfilled, as
the people in charge of the investigations let the suspects off the hook
by conducting weak inquiries and concluding that informed trading could
not have occurred if it was not done directly by Osama bin Laden or al
Qaeda.
The “exhaustive investigations” conducted by the FBI, on which the
9/11 Commission report was based, were clearly bogus. The FBI did not
interview the suspects and did not appear to compare notes with the 9/11
Commission to help make a determination if any of the people being
investigated might have had ties to al Qaeda. The Commission’s
memorandum summary suggests that the FBI simply made decisions on its
own regarding the possible connections of the suspects and the alleged
terrorist organizations. Those unilateral decisions were not
appropriate, as at least three of the suspected informed trades (those
of Walker, the Viisage trader, and Wellington Management) involved
reasonably suspicious links to Osama bin Laden or his family. Another
suspect (Elgindy) was a soon-to-be convicted criminal who had direct
links to FBI employees who were later arrested for securities-related
crimes.
The FBI also claimed in August 2003 that it had no knowledge of hard
drives recovered from the WTC, which were publicly reported in 2001.
According to the people who retrieved the associated data, the hard
drives gave evidence for “dirty doomsday dealings.”
The evidence for informed trading on 9/11 includes many financial
vehicles, from stock options to Treasury bonds to credit card
transactions made at the WTC just before it was destroyed. Today we
know that financial experts from around the world have provided strong
evidence, through established and reliable statistical techniques, that
the early expert suspicions were correct, and that 9/11 informed trading
did occur.
People knew in advance about the crimes of 9/11, and they profited
from that knowledge. Those people are among us today, and our families
and communities are at risk of future terrorist attacks and further
criminal profiteering if we do not respond to the evidence. It is time
for an independent, international investigation into the informed trades
and the traders who benefited from the terrorist acts of September 11th.
Notes
[1] National Commission on the Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,
The 9/11 Commission Report, July 2004, p 172, and Chapter 5, footnote 130,
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf
[2] 9/11 Commission memorandum entitled “
FBI Briefing on Trading”, prepared by Doug Greenburg, 18 August 2003,
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00269.pdf
[3] Dave Carpenter,
Exchange examines odd jump: Before attack: Many put options of hijacked planes’ parent companies purchased , The Associated Press, 18 September 2001,
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/cjonline_oddjump.html
[4] BBC News,
Bin Laden ‘share gains’ probe, 18 September 2001,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1548118.stm
[5] Tom Bogdanowicz and Brooks Jackson,
Probes into ‘suspicious’ trading, CNN, 24 September 2001,
http://web.archive.org/web/20011114023845/http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/24/gen.europe.shortselling/
[6] James Doran,
Insider Trading Apparently Based on Foreknowledge of 9/11 Attacks, The London Times, 18 September 2001,
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/londontimes_insidertrading.html
[7] David Brancaccio, Marketplace Public Radio: News Archives, 17 October 2001,
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2001/10/17_mpp.html
[8] Paul Thompson and The Center for Cooperative Research,
Terror
Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute: A Comprehensive
Chronicle of the Road to 9/11 – and America’s Response, Harper Collins, 2004. Also found at History Commons,
Complete 9/11 Timeline,
Insider Trading and Other Foreknowledge http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=insidertrading
[9] Associated Press,
EU Searches for Suspicious Trading , 22 September 2001,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34910,00.html
[10] World News Tonight, 20 September 2001
[11] Erin E. Arvedlund,
Follow The Money: Terrorist Conspirators Could Have Profited More From Fall Of Entire Market Than Single Stocks, Barron’s (Dow Jones and Company), 6 October 2001
[12] Ibid
[13] Michael C. Ruppert,
Crossing the Rubicon: the decline of the American empire at the end of the age of oil, New Society Publishers, 2004
[14] Kyle F. Hence,
Massive pre-attack ‘insider trading’ offer authorities hottest trail to accomplices, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), 21 April 2002,
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HEN204B.html
[15] Grant Ringshaw,
Profits of doom, The London Telegraph, 23 September 2001,
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/telegraph_profitsofdoom.html
[16] Christian Berthelsen and Scott Winokur,
Suspicious profits sit uncollected: Airline investors seem to be lying low, San Francisco Chronicle, 29 September 2001,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fchronicle%2Farchive%2F2001%2F09%2F29%2FMN186128.DTL#ixzz14XPGwh6e
[17] Lewis Paul Bremer III on Washington, DC, NBC4 TV, 11 September 2001, Vehmgericht
http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/08/lewis-paul-bremer-iii-on-washington-dc.html
[18] Charles Gasparino and Gregory Zuckerman,
Treasury Bonds Enter Purview of U.S. Inquiry Into Attack Gains, The Wall Street Journal, 2 October 2001,
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/wallstreetjournal100201.html
[19] Christian Berthelsen and Scott Winokur
[20] Tagesspiegel,
Former German Cabinet Minister Attacks Official Brainwashing On September 11 Issue Points at “Mad Dog” Zbig and Huntington, 13 January 2002,
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/VonBuelow.html
[21] 9/11 Commission memorandum
[22] The 9/11 Commission memorandum that summarized the FBI
investigations refers to the traders involved in the Stratesec
purchase. From the references in the document, we can make out that the
two people had the same last name and were related. This fits the
description of Wirt and Sally Walker, who are known to be stock holders
in Stratesec. Additionally, one (Wirt) was a director at the company, a
director at a publicly traded company in Oklahoma (Aviation General),
and chairman of an investment firm in Washington, DC (Kuwam Corp).
[23] 9/11 Commission memorandum
[24] Sourcewatch,
Mansoor Ijaz/Sudan,
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mansoor_Ijaz/Sudan
[25] History Commons,
Complete 911 Timeline, Bin Laden Family,
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?financing_of_al-qaeda:_a_more_detailed_look=binladenFamily&timeline=complete_911_timeline
[26] Kevin R. Ryan,
The History of Wirt Dexter Walker: Russell & Co, the CIA and 9/11, 911blogger.com, 3 September 2010,
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-03/history-wirt-dexter-walker-russell-company-cia-and-911
[27] Michael Moran,
Bin Laden comes home to roost : His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story, MSNBC, 24 August 1998,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101
[28] Alex Berenson,
U.S. Suggests, Without Proof, Stock Adviser Knew of 9/11, The New York Times, 25 May 2002,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E4DB143BF936A15756C0A9649C8B63
[29] Alex Berenson,
Five, Including F.B.I. Agents, Are Named In a Conspiracy, The New York Times, 23 May 2002
[30] History Commons,
Complete 911 Timeline, Saudi American Bank, http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=saudi_american_bank
[31] 9/11 Commission memorandum
[32] 9/11 Commission memorandum
[33] Erik Kirschbaum,
German Firm Probes Final World Trade Center Deals, Reuters, 16 December 2001,
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/reuters_wtc_drives.html
[34] Allen M. Poteshman,
Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, The Journal of Business, 2006, vol. 79, no. 4,
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/503645
[35] Marc Chesney, et al,
Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Options Markets, Social Sciences Research Network, 13 January 2010,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1522157
[36] Wing-Keung Wong, et al,
Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?, Social Sciences Research Network, April 2010,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1588523
Posts
Umpqua College Recipient of $2 Million Fed Grant, Features 
