Here's something for the conspiracy theorists?
No bait from me this time. Really.
What happened to the folks who sold short airline stocks just before 9/11? The volume of shorts was WAY above normal, and I think the volume of put options bought was higher than normal too, if I remember right. Anyhow, I haven't heard much about it since then.
There's something for you conspiracy nuts to latch onto -- there's an international conspiracy to cover up profits made on short-selling airlines the few days before 9/11 and to avoid prosecuting the criminals.
What happened to the folks who sold short airline stocks just before 9/11? The volume of shorts was WAY above normal, and I think the volume of put options bought was higher than normal too, if I remember right. Anyhow, I haven't heard much about it since then.
There's something for you conspiracy nuts to latch onto -- there's an international conspiracy to cover up profits made on short-selling airlines the few days before 9/11 and to avoid prosecuting the criminals.
Comments
Before 9/11 as in just days? or months?
Links?
Fellowship
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html
No matter what links one can supply, no matter how authentic, or verifiable, (and I'm not sure how verifiable this link is) anything that looks a little dodgy on the part of the official version is easily trashed , just by mentioning "conspiracy theory". The giggle factor is all powerful...and many a good story is consigned to the land of "Elvis-seen-having-dinner-in-the-Kremlin-with-gray-aliens".....
Nobody conspires these days, they just theorize about it.
By the way..what *did* happen to the inquiry into 9-11 that was to be headed by Henry Kissinger? That little episode got a tad buried doncha think?
It's true, Fellowship, but I don't have links. I remember seeing it in both USA Today and The Wall Street Journal at the time. I've even seen it in a textbook since then, and I think that snopes has a mention of it as well. But I haven't heard about the outcome, and I'd be willing to be it's because it was quietly taken care of in that group of 2,000+ individuals rounded up after 9/11, and in that round of financial institutions stuff that followed after about six months.
Links? Nope. But I'm sure they're out there someplace. I'm confident that the FBI is taking care of things, but I just didn't know what the eventual outcome was.
Originally posted by sammi jo
By the way..what *did* happen to the inquiry into 9-11 that was to be headed by Henry Kissinger? That little episode got a tad buried doncha think?
Actually, no. Kissinger resigned after a couple months, or maybe not even that long, stating that he had too many other things to do. The investigation is continuing, and has been in the news alot lately (last week especially) because of funding. It's ongoing and relatively high profile.
Originally posted by sammi jo
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html
By all means read this link if you get a chance. Stuff like this does more than I ever can to convince regular folks that the left wing is a bunch of nuts.
Given what the article says, blaming the "executive director" of the CIA would be like blaming the governor of the state in which it took place. No connection. Enough fact to make it appear credible, enough FUD to make it readable.
...and THEN you link to the nutcases at globalresearch.ca? Come on!
Originally posted by finboy
I figured some of the paranoics would have this one ready to go -- I'm disappointed.
the difference betwween what you posted and see as obviouse idiocy and what has been posted and shown to be true regarding the current administration and ties to corporate interests is exactly that: in the latter case there are real links and they may very well point to the notion of a 'conflict of interrest' situation
in the former case (your post) therre is hot air and no one will bite because it isn't true
I think sammiJo was being a bit fesheeshist (mispelling pun inteded?!?)
suckers