BSTP
Innovator Buffer Step-Up Strategy ETF
stock NYSE ETF

Regarding the premise of "**reopen the case**" as communicated a few times throughout the video, whilst also factoring in the premise of innocent until proven guilty, especially whereby the sophistication of identifying guilt may escalate to identifying scapegoated individuals that were stand-alone complexly (think of the sport 'curling') nudged in directions without any collusion or conspiracy, that possibly any persons who may or may not qualify as appearing guilty (guilty unver never innocent, all attempts to prove innocence warrants further guiltiness, yatta yatta), it may, nonetheless, be a premise that potentially qualifies as a reasonable innocent legitimacy. I suppose, to ascertain these fundamental innocenses and avoid any lying by omission based shortcomings or oversights or negligences that otherwise could reflect a sense of completeness that could otherwise potentially suggest as if what was previously deemed as complete is not actually reasonably complete, and therefore worthy to reopen, or further consider, to establish a more complete state of reasonable completion, that in doing so, this should at least also factor in what is the status already, such that the 9/11 Commission case is not currently open or ongoing, and on the specific issue of insider trading, with options, there were only a few sentences and a footnote.
Marc Chesney has made it clear that the appearance of 'insider trading activities' on September 10, 2001, therefore poses question suggestive that the case should be reopened, because Marc Chesney's research is merely a statistical study spotting dubious suspicious activity a day before September 11, 2001, and now a political decision to reopen the case could possibly enable further questioning and investigation into these dubious suspicious trading activities that are 0.01% or 1 in 10,000 of transactions, wspecially involving airline sector, but also banking sector and other insurance sectors, including involving put option trading in United Airlines, American Airlines, and Boeing, as well as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup, and how even Bloomberg appears to be dodging/avoiding addressing these things. I was nor am not in any way associated, affiliated, or involved with the 9/11 Commission case that is not open, but per my own inquiry, I consider for any such openness to investigate or analyze, I can, at the very least, apply what I have learned and know, which is not much, to try to make sense of some things, even if I may or may not determine any objective factual conclusions.
For example, according to Marc Chesney, and I reasonably believe/know this as factually true, the names of the trading activities on September 10, 2001, from the actual trading data, was presumably destroyed, or otherwise processed in ways that makes it practically impossible to verify or identify, and supposed on official record. I am not nor was ever a professor, but I can relate to former Professor Marc Chesney stating 'as a finance professor, my duty is to analyze functional imbalances, crises, but also frauds and functional crimes' and how he 'thinks it's a responsibility of finance professors to shed light, to identify frauds and financial crimes.'
----
So what do I know so far, if even my knowledge is worthy for consideration?
Firstly, no one has ever been identified, named, or charged for the pre-9/11 put-option trading pattern. The 9/11 Commission, SEC, DOJ, and CFTC all investigated and closed without charges. The identity of whoever placed those trades remains unknown. The 9/11 Commission itself acknowledged in a footnote that the UAL (United Airtlines) trade was "highly suspicious on its face" before attributing it to "a single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda." The famous footnote 130 (chapter 5, page 499), source: https://9-11commission.gov/report/ -> http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf (page 516 of PDF)
> 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—investments 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. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the 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. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10–11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, “Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review,” May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004)
The footnote is attributed to page 133 (150 of PDF):
> Later in 1999, when legal authority was needed for enlisting still other collaborators and for covering a wider set of contingencies, the lawyers returned to the language used in August 1998, which authorized force only in the context of a capture operation. Given the closely held character of the document approved in December 1998, and the subsequent return to the earlier language, it is possible to understand how the former White House officials and the CIA officials might disagree as to whether the CIA was ever authorized by the President to kill [Osama] Bin Ladin.^130
Secondly, I know that I can't trust any (not a single one) of the so-called 'fact-checkers' because even they also engage in opinion editorialization using emotions, feelings, sentiments, even entities like Snopes (https://snopes.com/fact-check/put-paid/).
So, the sentence beginning with "The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue" I think of my own single human person, my own singlehanded brain competency knowability and whatnot, for anyone that ascribes that any and all that I know or learned as being enormous, I am confident that if I can potentially figure out to understand what otherwise the SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, whom allegedly devoted enormous resources towards (wink wink nudge nudge \*ornHub.com), then what does that even say about what value is usage of words like 'enormous' other than sentimental, emotional, feelings value, and not actually fundamentally factual objective value? Anyway, just looking at some of the entities involved, I already """"""""""""""""understand"""""""""""""""" these things:
- [United Airlines (UAL)](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=%22United+Airlines%22&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)
- [American Airlines (AMR)](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=%22American+Airlines%22&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)
- [Boeing (BA)](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=Boeing&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)
- [Bank of America (BAC)](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=%22Bank+of+America%22&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)
- [JPMorgan (JPM)](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=JPMorgan&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)
- [Merrill Lynch (MER)](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=%22Merrill+Lynch%22&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)
- [Citigroup (C)](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=Citigroup&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)
- [Bloomberg](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=Bloomberg&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)
- Also see https://old.reddit.com/r/PROGME/comments/1vpsyou/is_there_some_relation_or_connection_am_i/p42b9z8/ noteworthy for Bloomberg STP LLC's filing with SEC for an exemption from registration as a clearing agency ("BSTP application") in 2013, and then thirteen (13) years later in 2026 Bloomberg STP LLC submitted a withdrawal letter
- [Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE)](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=%22Chicago+Board+Options+Exchange%22&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)

Regarding the premise of "**reopen the case**" as communicated a few times throughout the video, whilst also factoring in the premise of innocent until proven guilty, especially whereby the sophistication of identifying guilt may escalate to identifying scapegoated individuals that were stand-alone complexly (think of the sport 'curling') nudged in directions without any collusion or conspiracy, that possibly any persons who may or may not qualify as appearing guilty (guilty unver never innocent, all attempts to prove innocence warrants further guiltiness, yatta yatta), it may, nonetheless, be a premise that potentially qualifies as a reasonable innocent legitimacy. I suppose, to ascertain these fundamental innocenses and avoid any lying by omission based shortcomings or oversights or negligences that otherwise could reflect a sense of completeness that could otherwise potentially suggest as if what was previously deemed as complete is not actually reasonably complete, and therefore worthy to reopen, or further consider, to establish a more complete state of reasonable completion, that in doing so, this should at least also factor in what is the status already, such that the 9/11 Commission case is not currently open or ongoing, and on the specific issue of insider trading, with options, there were only a few sentences and a footnote.
Marc Chesney has made it clear that the appearance of 'insider trading activities' on September 10, 2001, therefore poses question suggestive that the case should be reopened, because Marc Chesney's research is merely a statistical study spotting dubious suspicious activity a day before September 11, 2001, and now a political decision to reopen the case could possibly enable further questioning and investigation into these dubious suspicious trading activities that are 0.01% or 1 in 10,000 of transactions, wspecially involving airline sector, but also banking sector and other insurance sectors, including involving put option trading in United Airlines, American Airlines, and Boeing, as well as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup, and how even Bloomberg appears to be dodging/avoiding addressing these things. I was nor am not in any way associated, affiliated, or involved with the 9/11 Commission case that is not open, but per my own inquiry, I consider for any such openness to investigate or analyze, I can, at the very least, apply what I have learned and know, which is not much, to try to make sense of some things, even if I may or may not determine any objective factual conclusions.
For example, according to Marc Chesney, and I reasonably believe/know this as factually true, the names of the trading activities on September 10, 2001, from the actual trading data, was presumably destroyed, or otherwise processed in ways that makes it practically impossible to verify or identify, and supposed on official record. I am not nor was ever a professor, but I can relate to former Professor Marc Chesney stating 'as a finance professor, my duty is to analyze functional imbalances, crises, but also frauds and functional crimes' and how he 'thinks it's a responsibility of finance professors to shed light, to identify frauds and financial crimes.'
----
So what do I know so far, if even my knowledge is worthy for consideration?
Firstly, no one has ever been identified, named, or charged for the pre-9/11 put-option trading pattern. The 9/11 Commission, SEC, DOJ, and CFTC all investigated and closed without charges. The identity of whoever placed those trades remains unknown. The 9/11 Commission itself acknowledged in a footnote that the UAL (United Airtlines) trade was "highly suspicious on its face" before attributing it to "a single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda." The famous footnote 130 (chapter 5, page 499), source: https://9-11commission.gov/report/ -> http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf (page 516 of PDF)
> 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—investments 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. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the 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. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10–11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, “Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review,” May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004)
The footnote is attributed to page 133 (150 of PDF):
> Later in 1999, when legal authority was needed for enlisting still other collaborators and for covering a wider set of contingencies, the lawyers returned to the language used in August 1998, which authorized force only in the context of a capture operation. Given the closely held character of the document approved in December 1998, and the subsequent return to the earlier language, it is possible to understand how the former White House officials and the CIA officials might disagree as to whether the CIA was ever authorized by the President to kill [Osama] Bin Ladin.^130
Secondly, I know that I can't trust any (not a single one) of the so-called 'fact-checkers' because even they also engage in opinion editorialization using emotions, feelings, sentiments, even entities like Snopes (https://snopes.com/fact-check/put-paid/).
So, the sentence beginning with "The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue" I think of my own single human person, my own singlehanded brain competency knowability and whatnot, for anyone that ascribes that any and all that I know or learned as being enormous, I am confident that if I can potentially figure out to understand what otherwise the SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, whom allegedly devoted enormous resources towards (wink wink nudge nudge \*ornHub.com), then what does that even say about what value is usage of words like 'enormous' other than sentimental, emotional, feelings value, and not actually fundamentally factual objective value? Anyway, just looking at some of the entities involved, I already """"""""""""""""understand"""""""""""""""" these things:
- [United Airlines (UAL)](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=%22United+Airlines%22&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)
- [American Airlines (AMR)](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=%22American+Airlines%22&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)
- [Boeing (BA)](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=Boeing&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)
- [Bank of America (BAC)](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=%22Bank+of+America%22&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)
- [JPMorgan (JPM)](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=JPMorgan&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)
- [Merrill Lynch (MER)](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=%22Merrill+Lynch%22&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)
- [Citigroup (C)](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=Citigroup&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)
- [Bloomberg](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=Bloomberg&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)
- Also see https://old.reddit.com/r/PROGME/comments/1vpsyou/is_there_some_relation_or_connection_am_i/p42b9z8/ noteworthy for Bloomberg STP LLC's filing with SEC for an exemption from registration as a clearing agency ("BSTP application") in 2013, and then thirteen (13) years later in 2026 Bloomberg STP LLC submitted a withdrawal letter
- [Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE)](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=%22Chicago+Board+Options+Exchange%22&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)