On Mar 16, 6:17 am, wrote:
On Mar 16, 12:11 am, wrote:



On Mar 15, 8:05 pm, Harry K wrote:

On Mar 15, 4:55 pm, "

wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:06 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:

wrote:
but we arent talking about any sudden events....we are talking about 2
events, both studied by the federal govt and its agencies...

in the first case, upon further review, it was determiend the first
report was incorrect....
thats the issue here, not random sudden events...

No one knows to what you are replying to. Next time try to include just a
bit of the text.

warren--hsca
9/11 report--whatever the call the followup.....

I dont subscribe to any of the whos and whys of 9/11 theories, I agree
with you for the most part you gotta be pretty far out there to
believe hald the stuff there is...

all I am saying, is this wouldnt be the first time a national tragedy
was investigated, and in a follow up investigation, the original
report was found to have serious issues...

I dont see how point out that the govt agencies have botched
investigations before, and citing an example, makes me a kook....

If you can honestly say the rockefeller, warren and hcsa reports are
indentical, then you need better glasses....

If you're referring to the Kennedy thing, There is a difference
between a subesquent report that clarifies, modifiies to some extent
and re-examins the eveidence and one that proves the original wrong.

The Kennedy thing found that the original was correct in the one
shooter bit but did find some discrepancies. Note again, that it did
not change the conclusion.

Harry K

One only needs to realize that ALL the evidence of the 911 Crime was
hauled away and destroyed and Bush thwarted every attempt at a true
investigation into the "attack" to know that something is rotten in
Denmark.

Hmmm... Last time I checked the 911 commission was created by
legislation passed by Congress.

So. Bush stonewalled and wouldn't rtestify without his puppet master
Cheney with him.

The members were purposely selected
to be bipartisan and independent.

They weren't.
Ever heard of Philip Zelikow?

So, for your Bush conspiracy crap
to be true, Democrats Lee Hamilton, Max Cleland, Tim Roemer, Richard
Ben-Veniste, and Jamie Gorlick would have to have been in on it too.
Seems to me most of the Dems on that list have pretty big mouths and
are no friends of Bush.

The 911 report is a joke.
It starts with a conclusion and fills in the middle part.

They handed us USAma bin Laden and we wouldn't hear anything about
altenative theories because they are all "conspiracies."

I guess even the fact that Bin Laden has taken credit for the attacks
on his own released videos doesn't mean anything either.

He never did.
You are a liar.

Who benefited?
Not the Muslims or Arabs.
Follow the money....oh but wait..they haven't told us who made all
those Put options on the airlines......no conspiracy here either right
**** you guys.- Hide quoted text -

It's pretty absurd to think anyone seeking to profit on puts would
need to launch the world's biggest conspiracy.

But they did.

Or that they would be
stupid enough to think that no one would notice.

Not when you can hide the evience which they have done.
Why haven't we heard ONE WORD about who these people were?

You think there are
no decent Americans anywhere on Wall Street who wouldn't be
broadcasting this to the world after their friends were murdered on
911?

Apparently not.

If anyone wanted to profit in such a way, a simple product
tampering, which any hack could pull off alone would have been
sufficient. And it would not have received a fraction of the worldwide
investigative resources that any fool would know would follow 911.

Would that be the lousy $600,000 the spent on the 911 investigation?
They spent aout 40 million investigating Clinton.

Now, here's the part you conveniently leave out. The 911 Commission
did thoroughly look at the heavy put positions you refer to. The FBI
and SEC tracked down the buyers accounting for the increase in trading
volume. All were found to have no connection whatever to 911.

Cite?

A
typical scenario they found is a large well known institution buying
large amounts of puts on the airline stock and SIMULTANEOUSLY BUYING
THE ACTUAL STOCK.

Not in the amounts bought the days prior.
The numbers were way out of line.

Like all the 911 evidence, when you look at the
whole picture, it becomes apparent what was really going on.

The whole picture includes the FIRST TIME FROM FIRE three perfect
building collapses into their footprints and pulverisized into dust.

And in
this case, it was that this particular trading strategy was something
they did with many stocks, many times. By having both the put and the
stock position, they actually LOST money in the aftermath.

Liar.

But like all the other 911 evidence, when you take only one select
snippet you can easily twist it to try to support kook theories.

Liar.
There is a raft of evidence.

Another thing that would put this into balance is to look at how many
times over the years there have been such trading spikes in either
these airlines or other companies.

That's what they did and that's why the numbers are unusual....Duh.
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-...arch=rense.com

The conspiracy kooks simply point
out that there was a supposedly sinister spike several days before
911. They don't say with what frequency similar spikes occur. In many
heavily traded stocks these type of spikes occur periodically for a
variety of perfectly normal and legitimate reasons and they aren't
followed by extraordinary events.

But thses were EXTREMELY out of the ordinary.

In other words, you're just another conspiracy kook.

And you're just an asshole calling peole kooks which doesn't make you
right.