Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony,

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: mmmary who wrote (77050)	5/29/2002 12:56:04 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (3) of 122087

He hasn't been charged with anything in connection with 9/11. IFFFFFFF he did truly was involved in 911 then I would agree with you. But what if he had nothing to do with 911 and is unjustly charged with that crime just because the FBI is trying to help their image? Which is why I believe that the US prosecutor should NOT have mentioned that at the bond hearing unless he had better proof than that which he adduced. If he'd just wanted to show that Tony was a flight risk he could easily have done it by showing that he had plenty of funds outside the country. It seems to me far more likely that Tony received information about his own investigation that suggested to him that it might be prudent to leave the country. So he ordered the liquidation of his children's trust account. Then the next day the terrorists attacked, and he decided that Lebanon might not be the best place to take his family at the moment. The trust account wasn't a big part of his holdings. Why didn't he liquidate anything else, if he thought something was going to happen the next day? It might also be worth pointing out that even the pilots of the planes weren't told the exact date of the attacks until hours before, and that in fact the date might have been changed in the event of bad weather or other circumstances. Apart from all that, Tony has a great big mouth. Ask him a question, and not only will he answer it, he'll also tell you a whole lot of other stuff that you didn't say you were interested in. imo, he's not someone I'd choose to repose a confidence in, let alone tell an Important Secret. And everyone knows he's tight with money. He didn't even pay Royer very well, and you'd think that an FBI informant would be a valuable asset. I just don't see it. And I don't like the insinuations. If there's real evidence that he had any connection with 9/11, then the Feds should release it. If they have nothing but the fact that he ordered the liquidation of a small part of his assets on 10 September, they should have said nothing until they developed more convincing evidence. As it is, this smacks of McCarthyism. We'll see what happens next. I do hope that CNBC isn't planning to take its usual sensationalistic approach to the "news" this afternoon.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next