Been a while since I posted anything here due to..well...some folks but, I had to post this: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...t-calls-for-new-911-investigation-at-icc.html How long will the public keep its head in the sand in these "non United" States???
Error in the first paragraph: The jet fuel ignited the fires, it did not sustain them. That's what NIST reported. Even Italian 'truthers' can't tell the truth. Good idea. Let us know when he decides to do this. Also, when will Richard submit his petition? Not enough money sopped up from the gullible yet, huh?
Truthtards STILL can't get anything right! They're suppose to convince an AMERICAN judge, not some senile Italian meatball! So what authority do you think meatball has here in the US? Oh right. None whatsoever.
yep! of course some debunker is bound to ask how many people it took to get all those exploding transformers in those buildings! Must have taken 1/2 the population of Manhattan! At least! and putting so many of them on the corners like that, well there outta be a law against that! only amateurs use transformers, the pros use soda bottles and shake them really hard when they want to collapse a building. that and people ejectors, that must have been fire extinguishers exploding I bet, yeh thats it! hey rtwf check boo boo tube lots of foia releases being posted.
Yeah, all these crazy people like head's of supreme court's, and truthers like the Asia times just keep asking questions, because they are stupid truthers. Am I doing it right? http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NC21Dj05.html
Uhm, according to the often sourced wikipedia, it shows that the man who own the Asian Times, is the leader of the Alliance for Democracy. Who are they? Well they've done such non crazy things as seize an airport: Yeah, why wouldn't you trust those people as a news source? I mean, they have to be honest, and righteous. Pass.
No, they're more like (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retards. Why? Because they are ignorant people using their positions to push blatant lies. Take your "news" article. They go into great detail about the put options on United and how this must prove ABS was somehow in on the plans. Did someone at ABS put in a large order of put options on United? Absolutely. There is no question. Did they also buy a large amount of stock in American airlines at the same time? Why yes. Yes they did. IF one is going to pretend the put options are proof of foreknowledge, how does one reconcile "throwing away" money on American Airlines stock?
You know who disagrees with you? http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NC21Dj05.html Of course I'm sure you know more about put options then the former chairman of Deutsche bank, right?
Ok, so let's be honest. This is a pretty huge deal right? I mean, it could possibly uncover ALL of 9/11. Which means there would be more than 1 newspaper, or news source in the entire world that would report on it. Can you find anyone else or other than this 1 source that picked up this huge story?
174. Agence France Presse (Sept. 27, 2001) 175 - See Australian Financial Review (Dec 3, 2001) 176. The SEC investigated trading of American Depository Receipts (ADRs) in foreign companies. ADRs are receipts issued by a U.S. bank for the shares of a foreign corporation held by the bank. ADRs publicly trade on U.S. markets. This investigation revealed no illicit trading. Source
Oh, so these investigators know more then the former chair of Deutsche bank about put options then, right? All these regulators that allowed the GFC, and Eruo banking crisis to occur. You sure you don't want to use a pedophile in a clown suit as a better source?
Says the guy who sources a newspaper run by people that took over and blew up an airport. Yup, I sure do.
It is his opinion. You know opinions are not evidence, right? So where is the EVIDENCE? See? I'm not so retarded that I have to put text in a large font and change the color to get my point across. You can always tell the idiots that don't have an actual point by the fact they have to childishly dress up their text as though that makes them more important. So why is it you failed to address the FACT that they completely ignored the fact that at the same time as they bought put options (which were never exercised) they bought tons of stock in AA? See, most people understand the simple fact that you should address the points people make in their posts instead of ignoring it in order to dress up a nonsense point like a clown.
Once again you clearly demonstrate that you cannot tell the difference between one man's OPINION and EVIDENCE a crime was committed.
Seems your standards for evidence exceeds that of a court of law, as an expert witness is a form of evidence. No way to undermine this chairman's credibility like Plauge311 has done with owner of the Asia times, which BTW has nothing to do with who wrote the article.
Sure, if the people conducting the investigation had any credibility what-so-ever. I mean I can find you a private eye who "investigated 9-11". The people that allowed the GFC, and European banking crisis have less credibility then a crack addict private eye at this point!
While an expert witness is a form of evidence, your chowderhead (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) isn't an expert in investigations. Now, if he was talking about bank policy, great. Use him as an expert witness. A former bank chairman talking about trader fraud and giving his opinion it would need inside information isn't an expert talking about an area he is an expert in. And I see you are still running away from addressing the FACT that the exact same company that invested but never cashed in the United options ALSO bought stock in AA which they lost a large sum of money on.
I see you are still far to ignorant to understand that SEC investigators are not exactly the same people who set policy. It boggles my mind how truthers can actually function in society with all the seriously (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up views they have on reality.
Do you have any evidence that a man that was put in charge of one of the largest banks in the world, and who made millions of dollars a year for his financial expertise, isn't a expert on put options, because his credibility is better then yours? Because making a bet in the financial market should be hedged as explained here that the purchase of put options for United were not, which is the key piece of information that you need to respond to. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NC21Dj05.html
Do you want to talk about how the SEC played a major role in the GFC, because I am more then willing to destroy their credibility here for everyone?
