911 debate

Discussion in 'Chatter' started by tomcorona, Sep 14, 2009.

  1. tomcorona

    tomcorona Anti republican truther

    I specifically joined this forum to engage another gentleman that I met at cointalk. He is representing the "Gov't side" and I, the opposing.
    Please add whatever you like in the meantime. I'll be posting facts/points that I think are unarguable. Anyway, that's why I'm here. Lotsa folks in bubbles in the other forum that prohibited reality, so, away we go. I'll be back as soon as I choose my first point. Good day.

    Edit: Ok...first tidbit..ready Blue?
    Between September 6-10, 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw suspicious trading on Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, two of the largest WTC tenants. An average of 3,053 put options in Merrill Lynch were bought between Sept. 6-10, compared to an average of 252 in the previous week. Morgan Stanley, another WTC tenant, saw 12,215 put options bought between Sept. 7-10, whereas the previous days had seen averages of 212 contracts a day.

    I know this is a bit complex but Blue..let's start here. No matter where you start in this subject, it'll lead to more questions, and every question has another question. If you're honest, the conclusions are unavoidable. If you live in your bubble, afraid of uncomfortable questions, then you will dismiss anything and will look no further (as most bubble people who are disconnected from reality do). Blue...I await any response.
  2. Blueindian65

    Blueindian65 New Member

    Let the debate begin

    I only have a few moments to post right now. First I would like to say thank you to CT and the PRWE form for allowing us this space, and would like to invite anyone intrested in this topic to join our discoution.

    The debate is centerd around Resolved: Al Qeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

    I think that a high standerd of evedince should be used in our debate. It makes it much easeir to assess the claimes and allows for proper research. Could you please list a source for the option trades if possible. I will answer this question more in deapth tonight, but from pulling data on just the morgan stanly stock price for the dates you mention. At best one would of only made 6 dollars a share X 100 shares, option contracts are for100 share bundels. This is not really that much money only 600 dollars a contract and you state 2000 contracts where sold so that is a measly 1.2 million dollars. While a hudge some for one person that is not a significant amount of money compared to the entierty of the us economy or just 1 day of financle transactions it is chump change. As and example Goldman Sach has made a billion dollars a day for the last 3 months I think . I know they went well over 45+ days in a row of billion dollar days. They did not have to kill 3000+ people.

    More to come after work and further research
  3. Blueindian65

    Blueindian65 New Member

    Answer to the "options" argument

    I would like to say that it is sad to say the least that it only took one post for name calling to begin. I do not live in a "bubble". Please avoid using rhetoric like this. It makes it very hard for me to want to continue this discoution.

    I will concede that as a matter of fact there was an above avg amount of options contracts sold on not only the banks, but also the air lines. This article form Journal of Business, 2006, vol. 79, no. 4 avalibe for all to read hear http://www.business.uiuc.edu/poteshma/research/poteshman2006.pdf

    uses sound statiscal analysis and a bunch of math that is above my pay grade to disect the issue. The article is written to support the idea that the terrorist placed the bets not the government. I also would like to sugest that peer reviewed not for profit jounlas should be used in our debate. Because the striket acadimic standerds applied prevent speculation and one sided hype. anyone with 10 bucks and a pireted copy of frontpage can start a website and post "facts" on it. That is not ture for Peer Reviews acadimic Journals.

    The point Ultimatly it does not matter. for a few reasons

    1. It is not in contest weatehr or not the attaks where planed. The question is who

    2. The options only prove that someone tried to profiter from the attack. They do not prove who, or proivde any reason for the attack.

    3. If you read the article I liked it has many reasons why other people bought the contracts. As a hedge to protect investments. The Air lines where downgraded before the attack. So not all of the contracts where bought by people with malicius intent. The article even makes the point that the price to buy the contracts was realativly low because the people issuing the conracts. who lost there money did not see anything illogical about buying them. Normaly in Insider trading scheems you have to pay a high premium for the contracts because the issuer is like wtf. Why do you want these.

    4. to use a debate term please cross aply the arguments I make in the post above. even if they made 100 million dollars from the contracts that is not a hudge amount of money realative to the amount of money that is made every day in the stock market by industral investores.

    Ultimitly this argument does not provide proff that the resolution is fales. So it is a moot point.
  4. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Clown Hater

    Would you two prefer that I stay out of your debate, or am I allowed to participate? I promise to be nice and not call anybody names.:D
  5. Blueindian65

    Blueindian65 New Member

    Your welcome to participate. I mean its not that I really care that people call me names. Im a grown man I can handle a little internet name calling. My problem with it is that it goes aginst the agreement we made before I agreed to do this.
  6. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Clown Hater

    I never anticipated calling you names. I did however call Tom some names in another thread.
  7. Midas

    Midas New Member

    Why don't the whacked-out conspiracy idiots ever address the REAL cause of 9/11?

    How muslim appeasers forget that it was muslim animals that first attacked the WTC back in 1993 killing 6, and wounding a 1,000 others. "True" muslims simply couldn't stand that they 'failed' back in 1993!! Hence, they tried again and this time succeeded.

    The facts are clear...on September 11, 2001, islamic jihad was again brought to our shores by a band of men, bound by a militant ideology, in an act of mass murder. The response by the United States would be a so-called "War on Terror," a reflex that has proved to be as ineffective as it has been costly.

    Islamic terrorism continues around the globe unabated.

    The B.O. administration lately wants to avoid any taint by the phrase "War on Terror," papering it over with even more ambiguity, calling it now an "Overseas Contingency Operation." It's still the same losing war, just as costly, just as ineffective.

    Terrorism is a technique, a method, a weapon, a means to an end. Terrorism is not an enemy that can be named or identified, much less fought effectively. A "War on Terror" is a war on shadows, a war on nothing and on no one. It is a fool's errand.

    Yet there is a war raging. It is a war that already had raged for the last 1,400 years before it was brought to our shores, a war that has laid waste to entire nations, cultures, and civilizations.

    The war is Universal Jihad: the eternal worldwide war on all infidel nations.

    The September 11, 2001 mass murder by muslim animals in the United States was a holy act, not only sanctioned but also celebrated by most of the islamic world.

    The doctrine of Holy Jihad has a clear global goal: the supremacy of Islam everywhere in the world. It demands theological, political, and cultural supremacy-Islamic Imperialism-over the entire world. There is no room for political pluralism.

    In Political Islam, there is no valid law other than the Islamic law, Sharia. The constitutions of liberal democracies are nothing more than the folly of fallible men and not worth the paper and ink wasted on them. Universal Jihad is a war on the cornerstones of democratic principles: individual rights and freedoms. It is a declared war on the very existence of democracy and the freedom of mind in the world.

    The United States merely is among the latest nations to be targeted for attack and invasion by Universal Jihad. It is infantile to believe that the Universal Jihadists have brought their 1,400 hundred years war to the West because of America's support of Israel. Universal Jihad predates the birth of the United States and of Israel by a thousand years, and already has conquered much the Middle East and parts of Europe.
  8. Elmosworld

    Elmosworld New Member

    The facts are clear...on September 11, 2001, islamic jihad was again brought to our shores by a band of men, bound by a militant ideology, in an act of mass murder. The response by the United States would be a so-called "War on Terror," a reflex that has proved to be as ineffective as it has been costly.

    Midas my thoughts and my gripe is it took us so long to retaliate. It was like beating the dog for messing in the living room a month later. A year later really come on that is not a sign of a strong army. I could ramble on but no need I said it well enough in the first 2 sentences.
  9. tomcorona

    tomcorona Anti republican truther

    Blue..first off I was NOT calling you any names if you are referring to me in the first post. Maybe you're referring to something else the has since been edited that I am not seeing now (they like to do that kind of thing ya know). At any rate, I apologize if you took anything that way.
    Lehigh..it is a free country, and I am not afraid of what words someone will type. I do ask that you try and keep it civil and I will try and do the same. It is of no benefit to anyone to sling insults back and forth, except maybe for entertainment value. I am 100% confident of my conclusions (I have spent quite some time researching this now for several years now and am quite comfortable with the knowledge I have acquired). Whether or not I can articulate it plainly so that anyone reading can understand it remains to be seen, but, I will give it my best shot.
    Blue...give me a bit to further research and decide how I want to respond. I agree though that I didn't establish who in particular was behind the put options. I would hope though that you agree that they happened. That's a start. I will try and build from that. I only started with that because of your obvious familiarity with put options. I admit that subject is not my strongest area of expertise, but it IMHO, establishes a base. The put options DID occur. The amount of money, or the fact that it wasn't billions rather than millions is rather insignificant IMHO. For starters...it represents that SOME person or persons placed them in the first place. Also, your point that downgrading time frame only further proves that this person or persons had good information, well in advance,
    to place those options in the first place. If you recall at the time, the administration claimed through many of their spokespeople (Condy Rice, George Bush, Dick Cheyney to name a few), that "nobody could have imagined that planes would be used as weapons and flown into buildings". Well, the options were placed from inside the US...obviously SOMEBODY imagined. Small point arguably, but it blossoms very nicely when you dig.
    I'll leave that alone for now, and I will further respond later as I dig up pertinent info, but while I do that, I offer a couple of other quick points point for your scrutiny.
    According to General Ralph Eberhardt the head of NORAD), it takes about a minute for the FAA to contact NORAD, (assuming everyone knows what NORAD is) and then scramble jets within a matter of minutes, to ANYWHERE in the US. The Gov't has given THREE different answers as to why that didn't happen on 911 from that day forward. Since a full 32 minutes elapsed between the time the first hijacked airliner was detected and the time it crashed into the World Trade Center, it initially appeared that "stand down" orders must have been issued to suspend standard procedures, (which were in place then and now), Indeed, the first reports from both NORAD and Gen. Richard Myers, the acting chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated that no jets were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit at 9:38am. By Sept. 13, however, the original story had morphed into an explanation that "the planes were scrambled but arrived too late." The delays were blamed on the FAA, said to have been slow in notifying NORAD. Well if that were the case, it was strange that no FAA personnel were fired or even cited for the breakdown in procedures and the resulting disaster (the FAA flawlessly handled, on the same day, unprecedented tasks of grounding thousands of domestic flights.) Meanwhile, transportation secretary Norman Mineta testified that at 9:20am--about 18 minutes before the Pentagon was hit, allegedly by Flight 77--he went down to the shelter conference room under the White House. According to Mineta, a young man walked in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out," and later, "The plane is 30 miles out." When the young man reported, "The plane is 10 miles out," he also asked the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?"

    "Of course the orders still stand," Cheney is alleged to have replied. "Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

    When Mineta was asked by the 9-11 Commission how long after he arrived the conversation occurred, Mineta said, "Probably about five or six minutes," which would have placed it around 9:25 or 9:26am. However, in the final version of the story, The 9/11 Commission Report maintained that no one in our government knew about the approaching aircraft until 9:36am, too late to shoot it down. How did the Commission deal with this apparent contradiction? Like just about every other piece of testimony that conflicted with the official story, they ignored it.

    "With regard to the question 'Do the orders still stand?'. Mineta seemed to assume those orders were to shoot the plane down. But really, the young man's question makes sense only if the orders were to do something unexpected--that is, not to shoot the plane down."

    So what did happen? Whodunnit? Could you give three different alibis when asked about a crime to police? I submit you'd be in jail. If you want to claim they were "incompetent" (as I've heard argued), which story is accurate? The 1st, 2nd or 3rd? Or NONE?
    Blue, fire away.
  10. tomcorona

    tomcorona Anti republican truther

    1. It is not in contest weatehr or not the attaks where planed. The question is who

    Blue...I planned to contend that AL Queada and factions of the Gov't were one in the same AT THAT TIME. I wasn't really ready to jump into this area yet, but, how do you want to handle it? I ask because we agreed the burden is on me. I wasn't planning to make this the focus but re-reading your post, I thought I'd better bring it up now. I am not going into the in great detail though right now I was planning to dis-prove the "official" story, (or stories). I also was not planning to have to prove "how they did it", rather, "it didn't happen the way THEY say it happened". Are we still cool?
    To reinterate...I'll disprove the Govt's story. Easy.
    You'll defend the Gov't "official" record..correct?
  11. tomcorona

    tomcorona Anti republican truther

    <<<Why don't the whacked-out conspiracy idiots ever address the REAL cause of 9/11?>>>

    Feel free to rant if you like Sir, but I'll not respond unless you can communicate in a more civil, respectful way. Insults aren't needed.
  12. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    LOL welcome guy's to the wonderful world that is the PRWE forum :D
  13. Blueindian65

    Blueindian65 New Member

    I was reffering to tom asserting that I live in a bubble. I can see how the way I wrote it could be missleading
  14. Blueindian65

    Blueindian65 New Member

    Tom: Where cool. I just don't live in a bubble because I disagree with you. The "offical" Story is that Al Qeda planned the attack. so to me they where one and the same. I thinik you missed the point about the Air Line companies being downgraded. They where downgraded because of the shape of their ballance sheet, not because x rateing agency was in on the attack.

    Is it really that hard to belive that osama bin laden and his finance people could of bought the contracts. I'll post more latter.
  15. Midas

    Midas New Member

    If the shoe fits...actually the adjective of "whacked-out" is fitting for those that believe that radical muslims DID NOT commit the first attack back in 1993 of the WTC and of course, their successful attack in 2001.

    For 1,400 years islam has been on the attack. It is part of their prophet's life example, their koran, and it is all backed up by their actions and history.


  16. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    Actualy it woudnt suprise me to find that the Saudies own rather large shares in most big ventures, just check out HRH Prince Alwaleed bin Talal,and have a look at what pie's he has his fingers in. From Citygroup to Paypal

    Oh and in 2002, Al-Waleed donated $500,000 to the George Herbert Walker Bush Scholarship Fund, established by Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, to honor former President George H. W. Bush
    In 2001 New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani turned down a offer of $10 Million from him just after the attack.
    Now check out how much he donated to Harvard and Georgetown Uni's!!
    He also made large donations to the University of Edinburgh & Cambridge
  17. craig a

    craig a New Member

    Youre talking out of your hat again, slick. What parts of Europe?
  18. Midas

    Midas New Member

    Duhhhhh...These parts of Europe:

    1%-2% (Italy, Norway, Greece, Ukraine)
    2%-3% (Denmark Spain, Slovenia, UK)
    3%-4% (Germany, Sweden, Serbia)
    4%-5% (Belgium, Austria, Switzerland)
    5%-10% (Netherlands, France)
    10%-20% (Russia, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Cyprus)
    20%-40% (Macedonia)
    40%-60% (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
    60%-80% (Albania)
    80%-95% (Kosovo)
    >95% (Turkey)

  19. craig a

    craig a New Member

    Russia isnt Europe. Either is Cyprus or the Ukraine or Bulgaria or Macedonia. And Turkey has been islamic for a long long time. And one to ten percent is not a take over. try again.
  20. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    Cyprus is Europe one half is controlled by greeks and the other by Turks, now as for Bosnia (Under muslim rule from 1463–1878), Albania (Taken by the Ottomans early 14c till 1913) & Kosova again was part of the Ottoman empire so yes they will have a large muslim population, it might even be seen as silly to think otherwise, now Turkey has been Muslim since the fall of thee Byzantine Empire in 1261 so again hardly a suprise that it has a high Muslim population.
    France and Spain both had a Empire that took in a number of Muslim countries and a lot of those people decide they would have a better life in Metrapolitan France and Spain, this also happend with members of the British Empire a lot came here to live.
    Russia has a large Muslim population due to it's conquest of Muslim territory.

Share This Page