Do you beleive 9\11 was a inside job/? (616)

I thought it was pretty creepy at first too then when I looked around I found this;

"" There has been a great deal of talk about alleged insider trading of airline stocks by associates of Osama bin Laden prior to the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Government investigators remain tight-lipped about a Department of Justice (DOJ) probe of possible profiteering by terrorists with advance knowledge of the attacks despite data that show trading activity on at least two of the most obvious stocks don't support the premise.

In fact, based on financial information almost immediately available to investigators, even the most febrile conspiracy theorists would have to agree that this dog don't hunt. For instance, much of the speculation involves "put" options--a bet that a stock will go down--on American and United airlines, the two carriers whose planes hijackers seized for the attacks. Yes, there was a spike in puts on those airlines just days before, but the data show such spikes weren't anomalous.

On Sept. 6, 2001, the Thursday before the tragedy, 2,075 put options were made on United Airlines and on Sept. 10, the day before the attacks, 2,282 put options were recorded for American Airlines. Given the prices at the time, this would have yielded speculators between $2 million and $4 million in profit--hardly what any analyst would call a killing in the options markets. Based on historical data for both airlines, the put options just prior to Sept. 11 neither were dramatic nor unprecedented.

For example, there were repeated spikes in put options on American Airlines during the year before Sept. 11, including June 19 with 2,951 puts, June 15 at 1,144 puts, April 16 at 1,019 and Jan. 8 at 1,315 puts. United Airlines puts were a little more during the prior year, including Aug. 8 at 1,678 puts, July 20 with 2,995, April 6 at 8,212 and March 13 at 8,072. Since such relatively small spikes in options occur frequently and in a random pattern, why would respected financial analysts and government investigators cry foul?""

The point is not the absolute number of put options, but the ratio of puts/calls. During days when the company announces earnings/guidance, it's normal to have big numbers of both puts and calls, with somehow more puts if they expect bad results, and somehow more calls if good results are anticipated. The ratio's normal values are from .8 to a bit more than 1. Then...

On Sept. 6-7, when there was no significant news or stock price movement involving United, the Chicago exchange handled 4,744 put options for UAL stock, compared with just 396 call options -- essentially bets that the price will rise. On Sept. 10, an uneventful day for American, the volume was 748 calls and 4,516 puts, based on a check of option trading records.

You can compute the rations yourself. That's what is hard to explain.

The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigate this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

It also mentions that the trades were traced back to the US.

Are they innocuous just because the FBI and SEC said so, despite the highly unusual put/call ratio?
If the FBI tells me that they tossed a coin twenty times and they got only heads, should I believe them?

Hell no, I know how unlikely it is: less than 1 in a million.

What do you mean by "well-explained"?

THATS WHY THE GOVERMENT DONT WANT INVESTIGATION?

Quote from wiki:

A put option (usually just called a "put") is a financial contract between two parties, the writer (seller) and the buyer of the option. The buyer acquires a short position by purchasing the right to sell the underlying instrument to the seller of the option for a specified price (the strike price)
during a specified period of time.

The expiration date of the option can be 5 or 10 days down the road.

Airline stock was down and going lower. hence, people will short rather than buy.

Article
""Anyway, says Hamilton, "recall that the market was in bad shape in the summer and early fall, and you know there were a lot of people who believed that there would be a sell-off in the market long before Sept. 11. For instance, American Airlines was at $40 in May and fell to $29 on Sept. 10; United was at $37 in May and fell to $31 on Sept. 10. These stocks were falling anyway and it would have been a good time to short them. I like to think of this as an urban legend now. I think it is the World Trade Center urban legend.""

What this means is your formula is not set in stone or even close. Puts will always outnumber calls when a market or stock is going down.

DID YOU FIND THAT MOLTEN STEEL YET KEEP LOOKING UNCLE ITS THERE

Waiting for you to show us all where it is. Any moron knows kero can't melt steel so there can't be any.

NO I HAVENT WHY ANYONE USE WASHERS PLASTIC YET NOW THATS FUNNY

EXCATLY NOW EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS FOUND IN THE BUILDINGS IN THE BASEMENTS

CONRAD73

It wasn't. At least you have not told us where and by whom it was found.





That's cause you are not too bright and don't understand a lot of things. You call concrete cement and now, you never heard of nylon or plastic washers.

""As described in the foregoing, the washer is provided with depressions preferably in the bearing surface thereof to face the elements being joined in which depressions the fluid capsule layers 11 are formed. In the course of tightening the bolt, the uneven washer is readily flattened under the applying load against the bolt whereby the fluid layer is broken to release the confined fluid through gaps between the bolt head, the washer and the pieces being joined. Through the indication of the fluid, an operator can readily recognize that the applied load is appropriate for joining the pieces without the need of any special tools or devices. By appropriately selecting the size and depth of the depression in the washer, a variety of strength of load can readily be achieved. Additionally, the production of load-indicating washer according to the present invention is possible at a relatively low cost and the visual inspection insures a better joining of the pieces against any fracture accidents due to an overload of the fastening. ""

NOW YOUR TALKING BOLTS NOT RIVETS RIVETS AND BOLTS ARE TWO DIFFERET FASTNERS OH GREAT ONE THERE IS THE BLA BLA AGAIN






DO YOU BELEIVE ALL THAT CRAP

OVER 50 % OF PEOPLE BELEIVE THE TOWERS WERE INSIDE JOB