9/11: What really happened on that day? >>MOD WARNING<<

What&#8217;s more, immediately before 9/11 American Airlines released a string of bad news:


12:48pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR NOTES 'POOR' ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, 'FALLING' DEMAND
12:49pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR SAYS DEFERRING JET PURCHASES BEYOND FIRM ORDERS
12:47pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR'S AMERICAN RETIRING 5 MORE 727 AIRCRAFT EARLY
12:48pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR: AMERICAN TO RETIRE ENTIRE 727 FLEET BY END OF 2002
12:46pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR SEES Q3 LOSS 'CONSIDERABLY LARGER' THAN Q2'S
12:47pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR ANTICIPATES 'SIGNIFICANT' LOSS IN Q4
12:49pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR SAYS CUTTING 2001-02 CAPEX BY NEARLY $1.2 BLN
12:50pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMERICAN AIR FEELS SQUEEZE OF FUEL PRICES, LABOR COSTS
1:07pm 09/07/01 AMR warns of wider losses - William Spain
2:44pm 09/07/01 Analyst: Airline Stocks Face At Least Another Bad Quarter
2:51pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR DOWN 3.4% AT $30.08 FOLLOWING Q3 WARNING
4:04pm 09/07/01 Boeing stock rating cut over commercial growth
- August Cole
Marketwatch.com

 

One entity bought 4,744 put options on US and 4,516 in AA?

Oh really now, tell me more!

You have pointed out nothing.

You just claimed that AA stock trends justify an 11 to 1 put to call option ratio, when that was 6 times the normal rate preceding the 6th and 7th.

 

Keep crop dusting your ignorent BS.

You out yourself as having zero financial knowledge claiming that bad financial news justifies this!

Why don't you show me some source that says financial news can justify a 6 times increase in noraml put options, or stop talking out of your arse!

 

No, go back and read it again. He purchased 4744 put options on UA and purchased over 100K shares of AA. You do know the difference, right? It means this entity lost a bundle on his speculation.

The SEC did an investigation revealing this, as shown in your link.

- - - Updated - - -

From the Dallas Morning News:

September 8, 2001, Saturday
American Airlines Warns Investors of Expected Deficit
BYLINE: By Terry Maxon

 

So this could be "the first time since 1993 that AMR has posted a full-year loss", earnings estimates were being downgraded, and one analyst is worried "that consumers will quit responding to the fare sales", which, if it happens, could make the situation even worse.
And this is the context in which investors may have been considering American Airlines on Saturday September 8th, 2001. A newsletter from WSJ recommended buying put options one day later, on the 9th, and the largest number were bought on the 10th. It seems to us that, when you consider the economic situation at the time, and the specific problems faced by AMR, this is an entirely plausible situation. No foreknowledge of 9/11 is required.

 

Why not just stick with 'governmental foreknowledge'?

 

Foreknowledge doesn't apply. The market had been trending down all year.

 

All you have to do is look at the trends and the evidence. No need to get all excited.

- - - Updated - - -

I never said that. The put options (in this instance) were made on UA, not AA. I'm starting to see how easily confused you are.

 

Obviously, by what I said, I wasn't talking about the airliner put options stuff.

 

You claimed the largest number of put options were bought on the 10th.

Where is your source <<< Mod Edit: Personal Attack >>>

 

In what world does one person buy every put option of trading on a stock such as AA?

Who here believes that on any day in the history of American Airlines that only one person has bought a put option for this company since it became publically traded?

Why should anyone continue to listen to anything you have to say about finance after making this statement repeatedly?

You are reading from the wrong talking points script buddy!

 

Where did I make this claim? The biggest spike of put options in the year 2001 happened in March.

- - - Updated - - -

I never said this entity bought any put options on AA. Who exactly are you arguing with?

 

Whoever it is I keep quoting, because I have caught you in about 6 bold faced lies in the past few pages!

 

<<< Mod Edit: Personal Attack >>> In the first quote I am referring to the days leading up to 9/11/01, focusing on AA specifically, and all put options made in AA that week. The largest number that year was in March.

The second quote was about a specific individual buying a large number of put options in UA, while buying a large number of call options in AA.

Both are examples of why foreknowledge is not required..

 

Do you see the words "this entity" in my post? That refers to one individual purchaser.

You're welcome.

 

Unfortunately you have been responding to reports of all purchasers of put options for AA and UA for the last few pages.

<<< Mod Edit: Personal Attack >>>

 

Been following this conversation along for a while now. Hannibal, I know that you were talking about a single entity, but you never did mention the name of this entity. Who was it? Secondly, as pimp has pointed out, you were mistaken when you stated that a single entity bought 4,744 put options on UA stock, as pimp is right in saying that this was the entirety of puts purchased during a time period, not stocks purchased by a single entity. Quoting from the Asia Times article Insider trading 9/11 ... the facts laid bare:

***Among the reports about suspected insider trading which are mentioned in Crossing the Rubicon/From the Wilderness is a list that was published under the heading "Black Tuesday: The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?" by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism on September 21, 2001:
Between September 6 and 7, the CBOE saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million.***

 

Great, so you guys keep quoting the Asia Times article. If this is such a huge deal, can you locate any other news agency that's reported it? Cause I am paging through all of the "sources" that the (*)(*)(*)(*)ty article you guys keep citing refers too and the sources are complete and udder horse (*)(*)(*)(*). They are either within a month from 9/11 happening, which everyone knows is when the most inaccurate information got reported, or it comes from other truther sites.

That article is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Let's look at a few of the sources:

"Early September 2001: Almost Irrefutable Proof of Insider Trading in Germany" - Almost only works in horse shoes and hand grenades. All that says is, "We have no idea, but maybe this could be considered bad?" Garbage, throw it out. Next

published in Barron's on October 8, 2001. - Yep, less than a month. Sorry, actually less than a month. Since, by it's own definition:

Ibid - Nevermind, I figured out what this meant. I means it's sourcing the same article that was sourced before. Which works to my advantage, because those other sources I have shown are BS.

published at LarsSchall.com on August 18, 2011 - wtf? From BEFORE 9/11? And it's an interview none the less. Not an American interview either, a German interview. Related? I think not.

More of the same, no links or information provided. Nothing found via google searches that doesn't bring it right back to conspiracy sites.

Lars Schall: "9/11 Was A Fantastically Profitable Covert Operation" - Do a quick search on Lars. Better yet, I'll do it for you. Spoiler alert, he's a german truther that's full of it. Has no evidence and links back to THAT article to source the article he is writing that they source. Make sense? Nope, doesn't to me either.

The Independent on October 4, 2001 - Less than a month after the attacks. Shall we take a bit of a look at The Independent. It's described as:

Makes sense to source a tabloid right? I mean, they're always right.

Anyway, I am throwing this article out as many truthers have to cj's extremely well documented and sourced websites. This article is junk and has no intelligent information.

 

Micheal C Ruppert, another source for the article is completely bat (*)(*)(*)(*) crazy. Illustrated below:

The guy is a nutcase, and has been proven as such. Powerful sources being used over there.

 

The Truthie traitors who are financed by jihadist oil money try to establish that Israel should be blamed for anything the Muslims do to us, or that the Jews did the whole deed themselves.

The Truthie traitors who are financed by Bushbots try to make him look good by giving the impression that anyone who criticizes him is a whacko.

The Truthie traitors who are financed by the ruling class cover up the incompetence and ignorance of the misnamed Central "Intelligence" Agency, which is really a Keystone Cops clique of bumbling preppies and Ivory Tower acadummies, which the bribed conspiracy conspirators try to picture as absolute geniuses easily capable of acting out their scenarios. The second fascist lie that they try to sneak in is that our rulers are capable of pulling this massive and supernaturally complicated deception, so they can do anything they want to us and it's no use fighting back.

 

I try to, believe it or not, I only anger troll people when they engage in questionable debate tactics.

For instance, when repeatedly making the same claim over and over in varying fashion that has been debunked, because it is plausible like an asteroid falling our heads in the next 10 seconds is plausible.

It really is effective in forcing them to make mistakes, and expose how implausible, their plausible deniability is.

 

Yes, your recent work with the gravity comparison was top notch and showed your honest and genuine debate acumen at it's best.

 

So you dispute that 4744 put options for AA were bought on the 6th and 7th of September 2001?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/291690-credible-sources.html

 

So were 4744 put options bought on the 6th and 7th of September 2001 for AA?

For some reason your answer seems not to answer my question.

- - - Updated - - -

Were 4744 AA put options bought on September 6th and 7th 2001?