Prior knowledge of September 11th proven by Put option buys

There you have it - other airlines experiencing the same speculations.

 

Where am I wrong, it says Insight in your post!

Insight magazine, a bible thumping, 20 ways to improve your marriage website....LMAO!!!

 

Not on the Chicago stock exchange!


Nor have you showed how much of an increase in put options.

But you did show that this German airline admitted to using stock holder money to make this purchase for a 3rd party......that makes sense! (<-----E-sarcasm)

 

You're linking to the wrong Insight Magazine, pimp.

Do try to remain honest.

 

I think it is my turn to move the goal posts on you guys.

This article is almost 90,000 characters long.

You have to take issue with more then one aspect of this article to even get a response from me for now on!

Maybe try actually quoting something from this article that you claim to be incorrect!

 

Keep moving those goalposts. Must be a conspiracy in there somewhere!

 

So this credible publication she works for uses the same name as this bible thumping magazine, and comnes up in Google below the bible thumping magazine?

Is it this one which is second, on science faith and the world?

http://insight-magazine.com/

Now I would think it was this 3rd one down that is a business publication, except that when i search her name through the website it says no posts found:

http://www.insightonbusiness.com/?s=Kelly+Patricia+O'Meara

 

Given the economic climate worldwide at the time, and the memo on AA ... No big surprise on such a (relatively) small swing.

Unless you want to attribute complicity all the way up the line to the SEC, you are merely clutching at straws.

 

You want me to attribute it up the line of the SEC, that is the false dichotomy your ilk creates.

90,000 character story, economics expert after economics expert, heads of industry, cite after cite all sourced, and this is what you got?

 

Lots of words and lots of 'experts' and what do you have to show for it? What actions have been taken?

A silly gif?

 

What does this have to do with wether or not there is evidence of wide spread prior knowledge to 9-11?

Anger troll me brah?

 

There is no evidence of wide spread prior knowledge. (Exactly how many people are you inferring are complicit by the use of 'wide spread'?) Lots of speculation, lots of words ... zero evidence.

Not that it will stop you from declaring some sort of 'victory'.

 

And yet, you can't tell me where the article is wrong.

How convienent for you!

BTW, keep trying to get me to infer something that isn't in the article, that seems to be working well so far.

 

I've given you several examples. Naturally, you ignore them and pretend I didn't.

Congratulations. What will you do with your belief? Start a church? Make some change?

Once more.

 

Why (in your opinion) has the SEC not investigated this?

 

Keep posting wiki against my Asia times article, without any specifics, and watch me keep end zone dancing with these GIF's!

 

Declare victory all you'd like. I hope it gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling. It doesn't make you right anymore than your large fonts did.

Why do you suppose the SEC has not investigated this?

 

Are you conceding that there was prior knowledge to 9-11 that allowed millions of dollars to be stolen?

If not, then you can take your questions, that don't have anything to do with this article, and.........

 

Nope. No such thing occurred.

Why (in your opinion) has the SEC not investigated this?

 

Start your own thread son!

This one is for discussing the evidence that this should have been investigated further.

 

That's exactly my question. Why (in your opinion) has the SEC not investigated this?

You know what the problem is with all your speculation? We don't know what happened to the unflagged stocks. We don't know if there were lots of flagged stocks that didn't have unusual trading volume. I'd suspect that if you picked at random 100 stocks, 10 of them would have "unusual trading volume" today, just by pure chance.

 

Since you can't answer the question, I'll do it for you:

They did investigate, and found nothing criminal.

Perhaps you should write them and show them the error of their ways.
I'm done. You may post your last silly gif now. You have my permission to falsely claim victory, once again.

 

So why would you care why they aren't investigating if you don't accept that there is something to investigate here?

See, you need to change the subject from the evidence in this article showing prior knowledge to 9-11, to the SEC.

Do you have any idea how transperant this is when I point it out to everyone?\

Now, if you don't want to talk about the evidence provided, then move along, because continued insistance on trying to hi-jack this thread is going to get you reported.

- - - Updated - - -

And this is new how again?