Put Options too coincidental?

Quad4_72 said:
This is what the idiot at screwloosechange had to say about Myriad's calculations:

:words:

... but... to anyone with half a brain and some basic knowledge of probability, this argument is easily revealed for not being correct

more :words:
-truth911.net
Click to expand...
Of course, to anyone with a whole brain and good knowledge of probability, Myriad's calculations make sense.
 
Quad4_72 said:
This is what the idiot at screwloosechange had to say about Myriad's calculations:

"wow.. you know what, i almost don't even know where to begin with this piece of **** thing you copied and pasted. he uses good language and mathematical calculations that may seem convincing to someone who has no knowledge of probability... but... to anyone with half a brain and some basic knowledge of probability, this argument is easily revealed for not being correct and basically using very manipulative language to make it appear as if there was nothing unusual about these trades. now... i'd be happy to rip this piece of **** to pieces, but first i want to know if this is going to be worth my time. you got me to read 25 pages of some other **** that agreed with me! yet you still deftend this article because it didn't point fingers, even though it admitted that whoever did make these trades did so with foreknowledge.

so if this is the final argument you're sticking with, i'll be happy to explain how incorrect it is and why it is totally wrong. but i think you know that his "calculations" if you can even call them that, are totally incorrect and don't make any sense with respect to what we're dealing with. so how about you answer my 5 questions, and give me a real arguement, because even you know this piece of **** you posted isn't worth my time to go though and disprove line by line."-truth911.net
Click to expand...
i thought that reply was really funny, pretty much amounts to "i can do that but i dont wanna"

soemthing youd expect from an 8 year old
 
Contrarily, purposeful put options on or about 9/11 would have been too obvious.
 
I've never taken a course on probability or statistics, but I can still draw a valuable lesson from Myriad's post.

A CTer asks: "how likely is it that this single suspicious-looking event I've selected after the fact will occur by chance?", concludes by "common sense" that it's impossible and therefore proof of the CT.

Myriad asks: "how likely is it that any one of a whole set of possible suspicious-looking events will occur by chance?", works out the math for a set of examples and concludes that it's a lot more likely than "common sense" would lead us to believe.

The lesson I take from this?

If you want to interrogate reality and obtain useful answers, the first step is to ask it the right questions.
 
Quad4_72 said:
The investigation I was refering to was the one that was more of an official one that proved nothing was fishy about the put options on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Oh ok. If it's not on 911myths, try snopes.
 
Myriad said:
Thanks for the appreciative comments, everyone (Quad, Firestone, and ktesibios in particular)! Ktesibios, that's a great way of summing it up!

I'm now posting directly in the screwloosechange thread, here:
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1089

Bring your own popcorn!

Best,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Rather than add yet another logon to my repertoire - let me add here and if anyone wants to carry to screwloosechange...

I don't remember the source at the moment, however, I remember when I first heard about the anomalous trades that the response was along the lines of checking how often the put options were used in the year prior to 9/11 and what their general size relative to a "normal" trading day were. What I remember, and I need to check on, is that all of the airlines had their stocks traded via put options several times that year, usually in combinations of two or three airlines managing to be hit the same week.

Also, the normal day trading range for put options is tiny, truly tiny. When an institutional trader trades put options they do it in bulk. Any such given trade will dwarf normal volume for the day.

Finally, as pointed it several times, the agency responsible for the put on UA lost money on AMR within the same four day period in question. Also, since the put for UA came before the purchase of AMR, it seems likely that the put could not have been in expectation of 9/11 or the AMR deal would never have happened.

Not that 911truth.net would find any of this convincing.
 
Last edited:
If the theory is that the people making the put options (if that's the right way of phrasing it) had foreknowledge and they wanted the attack to go ahead for other reasons (and perhaps planned it themselves) then why risk the whole thing by placing put options as well?

It's another pointless complication.
 
maccy said:
If the theory is that the people making the put options (if that's the right way of phrasing it) had foreknowledge and they wanted the attack to go ahead for other reasons (and perhaps planned it themselves) then why risk the whole thing by placing put options as well?

It's another pointless complication.
Click to expand...

Yea. If I were in charge of the Black Ops Department of the NWO, I would be pretty mad that some clown decided to try to make money off our brilliant false flag by in the stock exchange.
 
maccy said:
If the theory is that the people making the put options (if that's the right way of phrasing it) had foreknowledge and they wanted the attack to go ahead for other reasons (and perhaps planned it themselves) then why risk the whole thing by placing put options as well?

It's another pointless complication.
Click to expand...

Wouldn´t it be more interesting which put options were placed in
other branches that suffered from the attacks? Or the investments
into companies who made financial gains from 9/11?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom