So, I've decided to begin a thread, not really knowing if this has been discussed here or not, because of a statement by others saying that perhaps those that believe that the government may have been involved in 9/11, they belong in a mental hospital or some such.

Basically, I believe that there needs to be an investigation of 9/11 to prove who was involved, and there is so much evidence pointing to the fact that the government was involved in it, that calling someone crazy for believing as such, is a cowardly thing to do, because, by those on the 9/11 "commission" side, there are blatant admissions of a cover-up. The ones standing behind the government story are buying right into the mainstream media and what they say, and perhaps are too uninformed, or too blind to see. The media allowing any discussion from the other side, points and laughs at them, calling them conspiracy theorists and crazy people.

Let's go back in history for a moment. If you've never heard of the Reichstag fire... then you need to look it up. This same deal has happened before, incidentally, right after Adolph Hitler was "elected." These are FACTS.

http://www.truveo.com/id/3338800226

Now, look at what happened that morning. Foreknowledge? I THINK SO! Israelis? Oh yes, here is your proof that there were folks that knew about what was to happen that morning, just ONE example.



Are we to believe that these men photographing the FIRST PLANE... and there to "docuмent the event" had no knowledge about what was to happen that morning? Believe what you want. I am not crazy for believing it.

I don't have all the answers, but don't call me a crazy person because I believe this much.

I could list more reasons as to why I believe that 9/11 was "an inside job," but I think you can do your own research. Here are some good places to start.

9/11 coincidences (this is where I started out, several small parts.)



The next one, was Terrorstorm: A History of Government Sponsored Terror



If you're still in doubt, I would strongly recommend Fabled Enemies. (This has to do with intelligence ties to 9/11)



I'd like to keep this as candid as possible. I'm not trying to sell anything by what I do, simply, just trying to get the word out to others, and I'd rather like if people refrained from name calling. It's not charitable, especially when there is disagreement among very upstanding scholars, engineers, firefighters, family members, and intellectuals. No one should be berated because of their thoughts on an event, that has no grip on our salvation, but rather points to the enemies -of- our salvation. Those, I believe, that did this, wish to lead our country, with the help of Satan, into tyranny that the world has never seen, and 9/11 was their "catalyst."

God Bless you.

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

There are footnotes here as to where this information was gathered, and to my knowledge, it is all mainstream news, that was reported not long after 9/11, so the evidence at that time was fairly fresh.

This information is revealing in one respect, but in another, to me, personally, it is inconsequential. I worry far more about our liberties than I do about who made money of 9/11. I care more about the families of the victims, and those people who are dying of respiratory illnesses from working down there and being told that the 'air was safe to breathe' when, in fact, it wasn't, and hundreds of thousands are ill or dead because of it, and our government won't lend a hand to any of them, which speaks volumes, to me, personally.

If you're entrenched in your way of thinking, then so be it. If you have proof that this wasn't the case, and that the odd trading that day was "normal," I'd be open to hear it. The points I mentioned in the other post had to do with what I'm all for talking about.

For your information, I don't, nor have I ever watched, James Bond movies, so whatever was claimed in there, has no bearing on my beliefs on the matter whatsoever.

Some dialogue from "The Long Kiss Goodnight" (1996):

Perkins: "1993. World Trade Center bombing, remember? During the trial one of the bombers claimed the CIA had advance knowledge. The diplomat who issued the terrorist's visa was CIA. It's not unthinkable they paved the way for the bombing purely to justify a budget increase."

Henessey: "You're telling me that you're gonna fake some terrorist thing just to scare some money of out of Congress?"

Perkins: "Well unfortunately, Mr. Henessey, I have no idea how to fake killing four thousand people. So we're just gonna have to do it for real. Oh, blame it on the Muslims, naturally. Then I get my funding. Good night, old girl."

Argh... I lost an hour loosing my response as the site went down for maintenance while I was completing it.  What a turnoff.   :shocked:

It will be a few days before I gather the motivation to do it all a second time.  I hate re-writing a post a second time.

I feel your pain. I was working on a post in another thread. It's happened before and I started working in text files and then copy/paste posting, but I got lazy and now learned my lesson again.

I like how the message said "scheduled maintenance" but they didn't actually schedule it with anyone ... or even let the site owners know for that matter.

Do you believe the story the Gov and MSM have told about this event?

I will defend what was from that page, what I said I could defend if challenged which was the trading of American Airlines and United AirLines in the days leading to 9-11.


The site claims:

The spikes in put options occurred on days that were uneventful for the airlines and their stock prices.

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.  

Reference

And then proceeds to put the data in perspective with a one week graph prior to 9-11.



Looking at this with a critical eye

I see two critical questions that need to be answered for any kind of critical thinking to take place.

1 - Is this really all that unusual ?
2 - And if it is unusual, was there good reasons that week to bet on one of these stocks to go down ?

1 - Are spikes like these unusual.

Insight reported that there were repeated spikes in put options on American Airlines during the year before Sept. 11 (June 19 with 2,951 puts, June 15 with 1,144 puts, April 16 with 1,019 and Jan. 8 with 1,315 puts). In the same period, United Airlines had slightly more action (Aug. 8 with 1,678 puts, July 20 with 2,995, April 6 with 8,212 and March 13 with 8,072).

Reference

Twice in the year, for United, spikes on a given day where about twice as high then on Sept 6-7, thus can hardly be described as that exceptional, so I will let that one be... However, for American, it does seem that the spike are higher, thus, let look at the second question for American AirLines.

2 - Was there good reasons that week to bet on American Airlines to go down ?

You can look up how American Airlines stock has dropped 20 % in less then two months leading to September 10, 2001 and also, that there was a string of bad news and rumours on AMR on September the 7th, the last day of trading before American Airlines September 10th spike.

Reference



My conclusion is twofold:

- A one week graph is not sufficient to establish what is normal and what is not, so in that regards, the site offers selective information.

- The sentence :  "On Sept. 10, an uneventful day for American" is dubious given that there was good reasons to bet on AAR to go down.

I don't see anything here that indicates any wrong doing.

Could Mr Vandaler tell what brought down Bldg 7?

("squibb" is demolition jargon referring to a jet of smoke caused by the detonation of specially placed high explosives, used to bring a building down)

Are you referring to the sideway plumes of smoke coming from the top floors when the collapse started ?