Loose Change - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
hellaeon said:
Gravy, none of those guys have even remotely challenged you have they?
Click to expand...
No. My goal in challenging them is not to "win" an argument, but to get them to examine their views. There seems to be extreme tunnel-vision going on over there. They fixate on one small thing and think they're on to something, all the while forgetting that their scrap of hypothesis makes no sense when put in context. I'm trying to get them riled up so they'll dig through all the claims in "Loose Change" in order to find one that's supportable. I imagine they must get a sinking feeling when they realize that none of the claims are supportable when all the evidence is on the table, not just scraps. Or maybe they just hit the bong again.
 
delphi_ote said:
In other words, it's a vague threat by a bunch of lunatic community college drop-outs living in their parents' basements
Click to expand...

As a community college dropout currently living in his parents basement (ok actually I ran out of money to pay after finding out I hated computer science a year into a comp sci degree at an expensive university) I resent being lumped in with these lunatics.
 
Please Help!

Please help me. I'm in a "Loose Change" thread on another message board.
A poster raised the issue of the stock market activity surrounding 9-11.
He was asked by a subsequent poster to supply credible sources. And then he posted this reply (followed by my post which will explain why I'm requesting your help).
Can anyone rebut this?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7815042&&#post7815042
 
Last edited:
Sultanist said:
Please help me. I'm in a "Loose Change" thread on another message board.
A poster raised the issue of the stock market activity surrounding 9-11.
He was asked by a subsequent poster to supply credible sources. And then he posted this reply (followed by my post which will explain why I'm requesting your help).
Can anyone rebut this?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7815042&&#post7815042
Click to expand...

There are a few different stories and articles which deal with these put options. 9/11 myths is a good start.

http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html
I would also recommend this article
http://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose200407260700.asp

Best Scott
 
There's a good story over at Snopes.com about that. (It's the first result after you search for "9/11 stocks" no quotes)

Regardless, strange activity in the stock market is proof of...strange activity in the stock market. You could let him have that, he still has nothing.
 
The point about the stock market activity is that the original stories made claims of potential fraud across the world. There were investigations outside of the US, though (Holland I think, the UK, Germany, maybe more) and no-one, anywhere, came up with any indication of inside knowledge. You might get away with suggesting Bush could influence the results of an enquiry in the US, but Germany? I don't think so.

Also, as I point out on 911myths (it's my site, I admit it!), there were clear reasons for the airline put options, especially AMR. I'm always staggered that the "inside job" people never mention that the (trading) day before the American Airlines put options were bought, they'd made a big profit warning for the rest of the year, making the shares an obvious short.
 
Apollyon said:
hellaeon,

It gets even worse. (Or better if you're in for a good belly laugh.)

via SLC:

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/04/wings-break-off.html



I canNOT stop laughing.
Click to expand...
Un-freaking-believable! Now, I don't remember exactly when we did kinetic energy at school, but it was before I was 15. So how old (or just dumb) is "Spooked" if he thinks that pushing one wooden model into another gives the remotest simulation of the actual crash at 400+mph?
 
MikeW said:
The point about the stock market activity is that the original stories made claims of potential fraud across the world. There were investigations outside of the US, though (Holland I think, the UK, Germany, maybe more) and no-one, anywhere, came up with any indication of inside knowledge. You might get away with suggesting Bush could influence the results of an enquiry in the US, but Germany? I don't think so.

Also, as I point out on 911myths (it's my site, I admit it!), there were clear reasons for the airline put options, especially AMR. I'm always staggered that the "inside job" people never mention that the (trading) day before the American Airlines put options were bought, they'd made a big profit warning for the rest of the year, making the shares an obvious short.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum, MikeW! Kudos and thanks to you for your great site. I'm very glad you could join us.

I see you joined in May. Have you been reading the forums much, and how did you hear/read about them?

I bet you've got a few stories about CTists we could relate to. ;)

Again, welcome and thanks.
 
Well, right off the bat look at the dates on most of these articles! September 19th, 2001...September 20th, 2001...most of these are less than a few weeks after the attacks. There HAVE been investigations since then, ya know!

So let's look at the ones that are actually more than a few weeks after 9/11...

Bruce Blythe and Judy Mathewson, "Regulators Seek Evidence of Possible Terrorist Insider Trades," Bloomberg News, December 28, 2002. "Bloomberg's News Archive has been discontinued." http://quote.bloomberg.com/newsarchive/

Can't look into this one...discontinued.

David De Rosa, "The Icing on the Cake May Be the Suspect Puts," Bloomber News, December 28, 2002. ("Bloomberg's News Archive has been discontinued" http://quote.bloomberg.com/newsarchive/

Can't look into this one...discontinued.

Kyle F. Hence, "Massive pre-attack 'insider trading' offer authorities hottest trail to accomplices, Part II: Billions in Pre-911 Insider Trading Profits Leaves a Hot Trail: How Bush Administration Naysayers May Have Let it go Cold," The Centre for Research on Globalization, April 21, 2002, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HEN204B.html

Ah..."global research"...a solid source (chukle). From their "about us" page..."Our website was established on the 9th of September 2001, two days before the tragic events of September 11. Barely a few days later, Global Research had become a major news source on the New World Order and Washington's "war on terrorism". Nice unbiased source there. Even they call themselves an "alternative" news source (also on their about us page.) They'll sell you such wonderful books as "Celsius 9/11 : World Takeover and the War of Terror". This isn't a news site, it's an agenda driven site right there with prison planet and rense.

But let's take a look anyways. They say BILLIONS, not millions were made off with. Proof? "According to Phil Erlanger, a former Senior Technical Analyst with Fidelity , and founder of a Florida firm that tracks short selling and options trading, insiders made off with billions (not mere millions) in profits by betting on the fall of stocks they knew would tumble in the aftermath of the WTC and Pentagon attacks." Here's a link to his site, http://www.erlangersqueezeplay.com/page/esp/
So take a look at it and give him what weight you will. Perhaps someone can email him and ask if this really is his stance today, that billions were made off insider 9/11 trading, and ask him for his proof.

What else? "Andreas von Bulow, a former member of the German Parliament, once responsible for the oversight of the German secret services, estimated that profits by insider traders were $15 billion." Where did he get this estimate, and when was it made? I'd like to see some proof behind that figure as well. Just which stocks did these people believe would fall due to 9/11 and why? What stocks did they lump in other than the airliners, and did they investigate to see how much of the trading was legit? Keep in mind that overall the entire travel industry was being shorted prior to 9/11...this wasn't necessarily "foreknowledge"

The "article" then goes on to reference....(drum roll please)...more news articles from September 20th, 2001! Why can't these insider trading people get around that date? The article then mention the UAL and AMR put options (which have been thoroughly covered by investigations. Plus, these guys somehow forgot to mention Boeing too, a glaring ommision on their part.). And how about this line to show what they believe? "However, a case could be made that the focus on Enron has diverted attention away from a matter of far greater national security. The insiders, possibly the masterminds behind the suicide attacks, have walked away with huge profits for their sophisticated pre-attack trading; estimated by some to be in the billions of dollars. More to the point, they are now planning and financing their next attack with these 9-11 takings, as yet unmolested by a genuinely aggressive U.S. effort to shut them down." How nice to have already come to your conclusions.

Overall, this article is unconvincing, lacking proof, outdated, and from a biased source. Read it, and take it for what it's worth. Moving on...

Howard Gleckman, "A New Twist in Enron's Can of Worms," Business Week, January 17, 2002, http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily...020117_0563.htm

AND

Patrick McGeehan, "Enron's Deals Were Marketed to Companies by Wall Street," New York Times, February 14, 2002, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/14/b...s/14TRU.S..html

OK, these are about Enron, I thought we were talking about 9/11 insider trading? I read the first one, not a thing in there about 9/11 insider trading. Didn't read the second, as I'm not a NY Times member, but probably more of the same. This isn't on topic at all.

"Betting on Terror: An Explosive Idea." Business Week, August 8, 2003

No link given, but no trouble in hunting this down.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2003/nf2003088_7833_db045.htm

Another off-topic article. This one is about the Pentagon's horrible idea to allow people to bet on future acts of terror, and use the results as a predictor of future terrost acts. No info whatsoever on any 9/11 insider trading here!

Then at the end he links to pieces from well known 9/11 conspiracy advicates David Ray Griffin and Michael Ruppert (Solid sources...LOL! And Griffin only briefly mentions possible insider trading in this piece anyways, and it's more of an accusation than anything else, with no proof other than a very weak connection.) and the last link is to a 9/11 timeline from an open content site where anyone (who becomes a free member) can submit and edit the content. Not a very strong source here either.

Overall, almost all of these are outdated, some are off topic, and the one that I did find that wasn't either one of those still had outdated info on it and came from a very biased source. This large list of links looks impressive, until you really get into them. You'll have to do much better than this.

EDIT: I missed this one..."Mechanics of Possible Bin Laden Insider Trading Scam," Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT), September 22, 2001. Cf. Michael C. Ruppert, "The Case for Bush Administration Advance Knowledge of 9/11 Attacks," From the Wilderness, Aoril 22, 2002. Posted at Centre for Research on Globalization http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP204A.html"

Also a Michael Rupport piece (see my above description of him, this is not a news source). And it also contains some of the same claims and outdated info as the other "article" on here that also came from from "Global Research", which I address above.
 
Last edited:
(edited Piece Above)

And if you wouldn't mind, post this response to cyberbri's post of

RW,

If you were really being open-minded, your first reaction wouldn't be "how do I rebut (=refute or disprove) this?"

Looking at a claim and thinking about how it can be refuted isn't a sign of not being open minded. If someone tells me that the moon is made of green cheese and I accept that claim without thinking about how it can be rebuted, that doesn't make me open minded, that makes me an idiot. It's just an extension of scientific method, you make a claim (or hypothisis) and then prove or disprove it. If I get a 9/11 claim throw at me, I first look to see if it can be refuted myself. If it can't then I know that I might really have something.

Nothing wrong at all with first looking to refute or disprove something.
 
Last edited:
orphia nay said:
Welcome to the forum, MikeW!
Click to expand...

Thanks Orphia!

Actually I've been monitoring the forums for a while, since someone emailed me to say they'd heard about the site through a post here. So I've been following 9/11 developments with interest, as well as looking around elsewhere (I've also enjoyed Randi's work for some time, have a couple of his books -- Flim Flam, the Nostradmus one).

I might have joined earlier, if I hadn't generally got tired of 9/11 discussions on forums. Which is probably the part you can relate to. I started off neutral, looking into someone's conspiracy claims in a thread and finding they weren't true, then posting a reply. Naively I actually thought they'd be interested to hear what I had to say... So I was surprised when they ignored my points, moved on to something else, never said they were wrong at all.

I pointlessly persevered, finding problems in the new "evidence", too. Did they care? No, now I just got abuse for being a Bush-loving neocon Zionist (or whatever, depending on who I was talking to).

Eventually it finally sank in that most of these people weren't looking for the truth, because they thought they knew it already, and everything was interpreted through those "inside job"-tinted glasses. So I gave up the forums, & made 911myths.com instead, just to point out how incompetent/ dishonest much of this so-called evidence really was.

I've mostly left the forums alone ever since, which seemed the right thing to do: I can reach way more people on the site, than by making a post anywhere else. But then, on the other hand, y'all have come up with plenty of new arguments between you, so if I am occasionally going to post somewhere then this seems a good place to start... And so here I am!
 
mrfreeze said:
As a community college dropout currently living in his parents basement (ok actually I ran out of money to pay after finding out I hated computer science a year into a comp sci degree at an expensive university) I resent being lumped in with these lunatics.
Click to expand...
My point was their delusions of grandeur. As you're not making threats about what you'll do to people once you've overthrown the tyrannical U.S. government, consider yourself un-lumped.
 
delphi_ote said:
I am an engineer, so I'll help the guy out.

1+1=3
Click to expand...



You are not an engineer. You don't drive a train you jerk.


The lack of honesty in this forum is enough to convince me Dylan Avery had it right all along.






























:dl:

Sorry, I *almost* kept a stright face through that.
 
Well I must say to those who have worked towards the exposure of these tools its working. I was able to really put to rest someones doubts about the pentagon and a plane being there. In the end this guy who is susceptible to believing some silly things was suprised by the actual facts that are easily available for him to see. The debree question etc was asked and all it took was some simple explanations and then the realisation of what he was wasn't factoring into his thinking (witnesses, passenger DNA, photos that DO exist, plane speed V concrete reinforced walls etc)

Thankyou sanity.

Edit: Even better was I was able to explain to him how the towers fell, the reports of explosions in a large office fire and how the steel would buckle and weaken. It was cool. Just seeing his mind click into the logical and simple explanation. Able to talk about CD's and how they actually do work as opposed to the CD theory about 9/11.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
DJLegacy sure talked tough. He has all sorts of nasty things to say about me on the LC forum. But look how he slunk away with his tail between his legs when I challenged him. It's your turn to show that you're not a coward, and that you believe in your cause. Talk is cheap, LondonEye. I care about the facts of 9/11. Do you?

The rules are simple. Meet me here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58104

Pick any number of subjects that you feel "Loose Change" gets right and I get wrong, and we'll see who's pushing the "propaganda." Don't worry about these mean JREFers ganging up on you. This is just between us.

You're not all talk like the rest of your clan, are you? You can find at least one thing that Dylan Avery got right, can't you?
Click to expand...


Oh boy, a fight! This'll be fun. I forget, though...are we the Sharks or the Jets?


I hope I remembered to bring my dancing shoes.....



Now that I think about it, there's an approrpiate quote that perfectly describes the CTers... "I'm depraved on account I'm deprived."
 
You're of course aware that whenever an aspect of the big "theory" is debunked, the "theorists" immediately conclude that it must have been "disinformation" disseminated by the "conspirators" themselves to discredit the "theorists".

Well last night I discovered one CT'er who who takes this to it's ultimate conclusion.
His contention, and I kid you not, is that the whole durn theory is "disinformation".
His nom de plume is "jack ass" and here's what he has to say about "Loose Change"...

http://saltypig.com/blog/2006/05/loose-change-embarrassment-to-911.htm
 
MikeW said:
...I pointlessly persevered, finding problems in the new "evidence", too. Did they care? No, now I just got abuse for being a Bush-loving neocon Zionist (or whatever, depending on who I was talking to).!
Click to expand...
Not pointlessly, Mike, since that perseverence led to you constructing your great site, which has been priceless, hyperbole-free resource for thousands of people. I salute you!
 
Sultanist said:
You're of course aware that whenever an aspect of the big "theory" is debunked, the "theorists" immediately conclude that it must have been "disinformation" disseminated by the "conspirators" themselves to discredit the "theorists".

Well last night I discovered one CT'er who who takes this to it's ultimate conclusion.
His contention, and I kid you not, is that the whole durn theory is "disinformation".
His nom de plume is "jack ass" and here's what he has to say about "Loose Change"...

http://saltypig.com/blog/2006/05/loose-change-embarrassment-to-911.htm
Click to expand...

Yes, there has been a noticeable walkback from Loose Change lately, even among the Loosers. The spin is "well, everybody knows there are errors in Loose Change...even Dylan admits that". Loose Change is now supposed to be something that just encourages you to "start asking questions". Even Roxdog, in his most recent posts, has been backing away from it.

The reaction by other CTs is a little more extreme, though, and some of them (like the guy you link to) are obviously not afraid of being more direct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom