were comming?And if they knew why didn't they prevent it but choose to make a quick buck instead?
An analysis of the press reports on the subject of apparent insider trading related to the attack shows a trend, with early reports highlighting the anomalies, and later reports excusing them. In his book Crossing the Rubicon Michael C. Ruppert illustrates this point by first excerpting a number of reports published shortly after the attack:
A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.
-- CBS News, September 26
A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.
-- CBS News, September 26
2007-03-31 10:58:36 · 7 answers · asked by justgoodfolk 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.
-- CBS News, September 26
No similar trading occurred on any other airlines
-- Bloomberg Business Report, the Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), Herzliyya, Israel [citing data from the CBOE] 3
Morgan Stanley saw, between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares. 4
Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put options in the four trading days before the attacks. 5
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html
2007-03-31 10:59:44 · update #1
Thanks for the link but I already knew loosechange is bogus.thanks however for staying civilized and it is a great documented movie that might get others out of their loosechange illusion.However I am not satisfied by their explenation for the insider trading or the jump in put options.As far as I can see that claim holds up.I nowhere in this question suggest the US government planned or carried out the attacks the attacks.
I aksed if it was possible some individuals were aware they were comming,whole different story
2007-04-01 01:13:16 · update #2
What you are saying MAY be a sign but it is a helluva long way from PROOF of the conspiracy theory. One can use statistics or SIGNS to support a theory but when it is all said and done, they need PROOF to PROVE a theory. Comprendo?
2007-03-31 11:35:49 · answer #1 · answered by just the facts 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A war is the backdrop for GWB's presidency. Allowing the attacks to occur galvanized the people behind the president and opened the door to a myriad of possibilities. The broad scope powers of the patriot act, revenge upon Saddam and the chance to stand on the world stage as commander of the most powerful fighting force on the planet. 9/11 was vital to get everything in motion much the way Pearl Harbor did in 1941. Unfortunately GWB didn't get the WWII rallying war he wanted, he got a Vietnam rerun.
2007-03-31 18:12:21 · answer #2 · answered by Alan S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What a load of cr#p. The government didn't kill people on Sept 11, 2001.
2007-03-31 18:24:28 · answer #3 · answered by livefree 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Watch "Screw Loose Change" it explains the put-option claim jump
2007-03-31 18:18:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Okay, Bill Clinton was involved.
Satisfied?
2007-03-31 18:06:20 · answer #5 · answered by wolf 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
of course ---but the mass hate to use their heads---instead they like to follow the leader story
2007-03-31 18:04:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Oh Puleeeze.......Get over it or get out.
2007-03-31 18:04:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋