9/11

PolyNewbie · February 17, 2007

"An October 19 article in the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the SEC, after a period of silence, had undertaken the unprecedented action of deputizing hundreds of private officials in its investigation"

This is the same thing as a gag order. Once someone is deputized they cannot talk about the nature of these events to the media. Its has little to do with forming an investigation and to this day those put options are annonymous. The put options were not investigated so this is the only explanation for deputizing all these people.

Furthermore, the group of people in the Pentagon who were conducting investigations on other financial matter were all in offices exactly where the plane supposedly hit the Pentagon. They were all killed except one and that one has been heavily promoted. Still no hint on the missing trillions. Bad computer connections like one of the WMD twins said it was I guess 8-)

I guess its all just coincidence.8-)

Riverwind · February 17, 2007

Your list of news comments suggest an increase in derivative activity but not concentrated on those few days. I don't think the pattern is explained by your news items.

You just made that up. The bad news relelated to AMR more than explains a higher than average short selling and a drop in the AMR share price prior to 9/11. Some of the news also affected other airline companies.

Riverwind · February 17, 2007

"An October 19 article in the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the SEC, after a period of silence, had undertaken the unprecedented action of deputizing hundreds of private officials in its investigation"

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...6/2/62018.shtml

Within a month of 9-11, the SEC, acting in concert with the Department of Justice, distributed a target list of 38 stocks to securities firms around the world looking for information about who might have profited by at least apparent pre-knowledge of the aerial attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. To date there has not been a public word from any agency as to whether they have snagged anyone.
....

Those in the industry are speculating themselves – and the best bet so far is that the official silence by the investigating agencies is owing to a lack of much to report.

....

Furthermore, market experts say that the history of pre-Sept. 11 "puts” in the key United and American stocks indicates nothing unusual and netted investors what is deemed by industry experts as only modest profits as those two stocks fell predictably.

.....

The action in the American Airlines is equally unspectacular – at least by industry standards where the big players may pick up or drop hundreds of millions in such transactions. Between United and American, about $22 million in profits was made on the put options.

The crime of the century and 'insiders' only made $22 million? There is no smoking gun here - a few people lucked out because they were speculating on stocks that already had bad news published.

PolyNewbie · February 17, 2007

The act of deputizing all those officials was to keep them quiet not start a big investigation.

PolyNewbie · February 17, 2007

Riverwind:You just made that up.

Yes, I qualified it as an opinion. Everything you say is made up.

Riverwind · February 17, 2007

Yes, I qualified it as an opinion. Everything you say is made up.

Evade, evade, evade. The facts are clear - the put options on UAL stock were not unusually high. Bad news was circulating about AMR which more than explains any put options as far as anyone in the financial industry is concerned. And the total profits from the alleged 'insider' trading were a mere $22 million. In the face of those brutal facts the only counter argument that you can come up with is 'i don't think the bad news explains the AMR put options'.

That is not an argument that is just the mutterings of someone who has no argument left.

PolyNewbie · February 17, 2007

Riverwind: The facts are clear - the put options on UAL stock were not unusually high.

There seems to be adifference of opinion, many people think its highly significant. The graphic illustrations certainly suggest something significant.

I don't know what web sites you get your opinions from, I would imagine its banker related or government web sites which don't really hold water because they are the ones under the magnifying glass. An independent source would be better but that would likely be from corporate controlled media who is very interested in covering these things up, as we have seen from the 911 reports - wtc7 collapse was only shown that one day yet the towers collapsing was shown at naeseum.

Its not hard to figure out why you don't include the link with your quotes.

PolyNewbie · February 17, 2007

The issue is the foreknowledge of the event, not the money made.

Quotes from presstitutes don't add up to much credibility.

Riverwind · February 17, 2007

There seems to be adifference of opinion, many people think its highly significant. The graphic illustrations certainly suggest something significant.

The graphs you are thinking of show the RATIO of puts - not the absolute number of puts. Those graphs were deliberately created to mislead people about the significance of what went on.

They certainly do not change the fact that the total number of puts was not significant and that the total amount of money made by this 'insider' trading is peanuts compared to the money that big players on wall street usually make/lose on deals.

The issue is the foreknowledge of the event, not the money made.
Quotes from presstitutes don't add up to much credibility.

Actually they do - they completely debunk your claim that the stock trading is evidence of foreknowledge because the most rational explaination is the slightly higher than average put options are explained by the negative news.

PolyNewbie · February 17, 2007

Riverwind:Actually they do - they completely debunk your claim that the stock trading is evidence of foreknowledge because the most rational explaination is the slightly higher than average put options are explained by the negative news.

Thats your most rational explantion not the most rational explanation. You have reached far and wide to try and rationalize away all the smoking gun evidence of 911. I don't think you are convincing anyone.

Riverwind · February 17, 2007

Thats your most rational explantion not the most rational explanation. You have reached far and wide to try and rationalize away all the smoking gun evidence of 911. I don't think you are convincing anyone.

The onus of proof on you because you are the one claiming that the trading activity is proof of foreknowledge. That means you have to prove that there are no other explanations for the activity. I have given you an alternate explanation for the observed trading activity which disproves your claim.

gc1765 · February 17, 2007

The issue is the foreknowledge of the event, not the money made.
Quotes from presstitutes don't add up to much credibility.

IF you are correct, how do you even know who had foreknowledge? Maybe al-qaeda or people with connections to them wanted to make a profit?

PolyNewbie · February 18, 2007

qc: You need to see The Power Of Nighmares - it answers the confusion that you lay out in your quotation. You can do a free google search for it. Its in three parts and done by the BBC. Osama and the Bushes are very much working togather and it explains the history and philosophy behind it. I guarentee you will be *blown away*.

As for your question you raise a good point but I don't think Al CIADA could have put bombs in wtc7.

BayLee · February 18, 2007

Bottom line is that is bush had not orf ignored inteligence reports and his Rice had even the faintest idea who Al_Quida was 9/11 just may not have happened

Canadian Blue · February 18, 2007

I think Condeleeza Rice knew who Al Queida was.

BayLee · February 18, 2007

I think Condeleeza Rice knew who Al Queida was.

No she didnt

"Officials now agree that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism deputy, J. Cofer Black, were so alarmed about an impending Al Qaeda attack that they demanded an emergency meeting at the White House with Ms. Rice and her National Security Council staff."

She ignored these warnings.

She didnt have a clue who they were

kimmy · February 18, 2007

kimmy: I have enough general knowledge to know that planes packed with conventional explosives wouldn't create an EMP.
I'm an engineering grad who did very well in electromagnetic theory. I am not convinced that is pulse EMP engines would not create an electromagnetic pulse because I am not a high energy physicist.

First off, as we already discussed, a jetliner loaded with explosives isn't a "pulse jet engine". You know that, I know that, and everybody except for your dumb little buddy David Hawkins knows that.

Also, since when are conventional explosives considered "high energy physics" anyway?

You do not have enough scientific knowledge to be humbled by the topic and assume that you know everything. Many posters on this thread are afflicted by this danger of having a little bit of knowledge.

That statement is hilariously ironic, coming from you, a guy who has talked over and over again about how you don't need to know anything at all about structural engineering to know the towers couldn't have collapsed from the planes and fires.

"Hyuk, 6 times overbuild factor times half core damaged by plane-crash times half strength because of fire means the building still had 1.5 overbuild factor! HYUK! Structural engineering is easy, hyuk-hyuk!"

uh-huh. You need to be a high-energy physicist to know whether conventional explosives can create an EMP, but any highschool drop-out can assess the structural damage done to the Twin Towers. Riiiiight. Nice one.

-k

Canadian Blue · February 18, 2007

No she didnt
"Officials now agree that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism deputy, J. Cofer Black, were so alarmed about an impending Al Qaeda attack that they demanded an emergency meeting at the White House with Ms. Rice and her National Security Council staff."

She ignored these warnings.

She didnt have a clue who they were

Link...

kimmy · February 18, 2007

On that point he is full of it. The incompetence and confusion is the most plausible explanation for the lack of an air response on 9/11. Poly loves to rehash the testimony of one witness at the 9/11 commission who claimed their was a stand down order but he ignores the fact that confusion in the command chain would also explain such an order - if it was actually given.

All those planes being allowed to fly across America air space for so long shows he has a point.

Keith Olbermann checks out the tapes from NORAD.

While this video was provided to us by "Jenna", one of the Truthies as proof of ... I forget what she was trying to prove, but what it clearly shows is:

-confusion over how many planes had been hijacked.

-inability to determine which planes had been

-confusion over whether they were authorized to shoot down hijacked planes

-shootdown authority was not granted until after all of the hijacked planes had already been crashed.

Why didn't the Air Force shoot down the planes before they crashed into targets?

They didn't know which planes to shoot down. And they weren't given the authority to shoot planes down until it was too late.

As Olbermann's guest states:

"If these tapes prove anything, it is not complicity, it is not conspiracy, but it is total ineptitude."

-k

PolyNewbie · February 18, 2007

The government is try to convince us that it was an accident. I used to use the same excuse when I was a kid and did something wrong. "I didn't know"

The government with its ability to wage war is not dumb enough to make all the mistakes. The confusion at NORAD was created.

PolyNewbie · February 18, 2007

kimmy:First off, as we already discussed, a jetliner loaded with explosives isn't a "pulse jet engine". You know that, I know that, and everybody except for your dumb little buddy David Hawkins knows that.
Also, since when are conventional explosives considered "high energy physics" anyway?

I think that a tube filled with explosives would act just like a pulse jet engine. I listened to Hawkings and find his theories to make sense. I have a bachelors degree in engineering and a little bit of tactile experience playing with gasoline as a kid. (it was a hobby when my parents were not home) You have a high school education and are calling someone with a Phd in thermodynamics a fool. I suppose youy think the army captain that is working with him as a fool too. Perhaps you are the fool.

I think after a certain velocity scientific principles change. The iron clad laws that you learned in high school are not really laws because they have "envelopes of applicability". I think the high speed explosives may behave a little differently because of the velocity. I don't know - I am no chemist.

PolyNewbie · February 18, 2007

Riverwind: Do you ever volunteer your time to help corporations lobby governments ?

Are you familiar with the term "burning down your own house" ?

kimmy · February 18, 2007

kimmy:First off, as we already discussed, a jetliner loaded with explosives isn't a "pulse jet engine". You know that, I know that, and everybody except for your dumb little buddy David Hawkins knows that.
Also, since when are conventional explosives considered "high energy physics" anyway?

I think that a tube filled with explosives would act just like a pulse jet engine. I listened to Hawkings and find his theories to make sense. I have a bachelors degree in engineering and a little bit of tactile experience playing with gasoline as a kid. (it was a hobby when my parents were not home)

What were you doing with the gasoline? Sniffing it?

Why jamming a bunch of explosives into a tube and blowing them up doesn't act "just like a pulse jet engine":

-a pulse jet engine is a cyclical process: detonation, exhaust, refueling, reignition, repeating over and over.

-a tube jammed full of explosives and detonated is a non-cyclical process comprised of just 2 of those steps, detonation and exhaust. It has no way of refueling the combustion chamber, and in the case of a jetliner filled with explosives, no combustion chamber left to refuel since the aluminum skin and glass windows comprising the "combustion chamber" would be blown to pieces after the first detonation.

You have a high school education and are calling someone with a Phd in thermodynamics a fool. I suppose youy think the army captain that is working with him as a fool too. Perhaps you are the fool.

well, maybe, but I'm not the one claiming that a little BC aircraft maintenance and repair company can turn a jetliner into a pulse-jet engine, and I'm not the one claiming that an airliner outfitted as Hawkins described would create an EMP.

This guy has a PhD in Thermodynamics? he couldn't possibly. They don't give PhDs to people this dumb, do they? Maybe he used to be be a respectable scientist but he suffered some kind of blunt head trauma that left him stupid. Maybe he went senile or crazy.

Or maybe he's a "PhD in thermodynamics" in the same sense that Fetzer is a "theoretical scientist" or you're an "applied physicist" or I'm a "logistics and deployment expert".

I don't have any way of verifying that Hawkins is a "PhD in Thermodynamics", so I can't judge him based on his alleged qualifications, I can only judge him based on what he says. And what he says is just sooooo stupid.

I think after a certain velocity scientific principles change. The iron clad laws that you learned in high school are not really laws because they have "envelopes of applicability". I think the high speed explosives may behave a little differently because of the velocity. I don't know - I am no chemist.

I was going to go into a whole thing on how an EMP could be created-- massive electrical discharge (like lightning...), or photoelectric effect on a massive scale (like in a nuclear explosion) or maybe kinetic energies to "plasmafy" matter ("doomsday asteroid" scenario) and ask which of these sound like blowing up an airliner with conventional explosives. I was going to challenge you to use your Phat Engineering Skillz to calculate the temperature materials would have to combust at to create a similar effect. Or explain what mechanism you envision that converts even a small portion of a conventional explosion into electromagnetic energy.

I was going to try to appeal to your common sense by asking things like "if hundred-MegaWatt electrical transients like lightning bolts create an EMP that at worst interferes with TV and radio reception, then how does a mechanical explosion cause lights to flicker?"

But you know, why bother. Everybody can see that your (and Hawkins') position on the subject is laughable.

To me, the more interesting thing that's emerged from this exchange is the different standards you apply to different fields of scientific knowledge.

When it comes to speculating why a pulse-jet engine would create an EMP, you defer your opinion because you don't know enough about "high energy physics" or chemistry to speculate on the matter.

But when it comes to structural engineering, you say over and over how "it's obvious" or "anybody can see" why this or that should have happened. You're unwilling to speculate as to whether blowing up an airplane with conventional explosives would create an EMP, and yet you believe that anybody with two eyes and a computer is qualified to assess the structural damage done to the twin towers.

And what's really funny is that you apparently don't see any contradiction between the two positions.

-k

PolyNewbie · February 18, 2007

Kimmy:When it comes to speculating why a pulse-jet engine would create an EMP, you defer your opinion because you don't know enough about "high energy physics" or chemistry to speculate on the matter.
But when it comes to structural engineering, you say over and over how "it's obvious" or "anybody can see" why this or that should have happened. You're unwilling to speculate as to whether blowing up an airplane with conventional explosives would create an EMP, and yet you believe that anybody with two eyes and a computer is qualified to assess the structural damage done to the twin towers.

Right - anyone with two eyes can see the collapses were unnatural and controlled because the buildings collapsed straight down. For the building collapses to occur symetrically like that all supports on each floor would have to collapse at the same time. That would be like throwing a 100 basket balls onto a pile and have them all balance directly on top of each other to form a straight vertical tower that is 100 basket balls high - impossible.

And what's really funny is that you apparently don't see any contradiction between the two positions.

No, I don't. Explain.

kimmy:...or I'm a "logistics and deployment expert".

Or you are just a fool that doesn't recognise his own limitations and understanding.

kimmy:This guy has a PhD in Thermodynamics? he couldn't possibly.

I was wrong, he has bachelors degrees but with distinction.

kimmy:well, maybe, but I'm not the one claiming that a little BC aircraft maintenance and repair company can turn a jetliner into a pulse-jet engine,

I could do it with some duct tape, explosives and maybe a hammer. The airplane wasn't converted to a pulse jet engine in the literal sense - the explosion inside behaved like one. Its like if you put gas in a beer bottle and set a match at the top - a flame shoots out.

marcinmoka · February 19, 2007

I overheard this, and I love it:

"

"I heard that the towers were squashed with a ginormous copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, telepathically wielded by Illuminati Templar Lizard People."