Worst Olympic event ever.

I'll admit that the rather obvious insider trading angle is a dead end, but that is entirely because of stonewalling, not merit. The vast array of financial analysts and law enforcement agents who insist foreknowledge had to be in play due to the trade volumes is mind-boggling, and not something that this official (footnoted) white wash really wipes clean.

The footnote coverage - again, footnotes, regarding a potential money trail - in the report is wholly dishonest in its extensive omission, nonetheless. There were a lot more trades affected than just that of American Airlines - none of which the "commission" bothered to mention. It was a loose end, tied up nicely. Perhaps if they received Starr Report kind of funding, they might have pressed harder, and/or shown their actual work, rather than write trust us, we looked really hard and found nothing.

Easily, the far more awkward "follow the money" aspect of 9/11 for coincidence theorists is the involvement of ISI chief Mamoud Ahmed (numerous different spellings), the U.S.'s refusal to apprehend him, and his amazing ability to quietly retire (fired?) and disappear from public life. Usually, they are left punting to "so? how do YOU know the wire transfer from his line was his responsibility? So? how do YOU know he wasn't questioned by U.S. authorities?!!!" ... and nothing more substantive.

Was he mentioned in that "comprehensive" official report? Or was following the money not on the mandate?

Why do you keep using the word "coincidence?" What is the coincidence with the ISI chief? You simply can't prove the U.S. was complicit in anything he was doing.

Because to believe the official story is to dismiss hundreds of overlapping nefarious occurrences as all mere coincidence. Something similar in probability to believing the possibility of flopping two straight flushes in a row is entirely plausible.

That his $100,000 wire transfer to Atta - as confirmed by Indian intel and our own FBI - was innocuous and not worth looking into, nor worth mentioning in the 9/11 fictional novel. Coincidence.

It goes A B C D E F G H I J ... and so forth. It does not go A then straight to Z. If he was apprehended and questioned, the official story would likely have to change significantly.

I will say it is striking that a contributor here like Fly - whom I actually admire for his resilience when he was a pariah here back in the day - as someone who recognizes overt (and veiled) racism in so many forms, is also someone who starts the 9/11 discussion from a position of "I'm not convinced." As if the depravity of uniformed and corporatized white men in power somehow does not extend to our largely fraudulent war on terror.

As someone who's likely read Zinn's masterpiece, Fly, I would ask someone like you: Where does the distinction lie when it comes to healthy skepticism? Events like the Maine, Tuskeegee, Fort Pillow, Tonkin, Northwoods, Allende, Mossedeq, Iran-Contra, Savings & Loan, WMDs, CDCs, Pat Tillman and on and on and on do not set any semblance of precedent regarding the depravity of men in power?

That's what I say the author of the academic paper in a reputable journal is implying. If you disagree show your work.

Admiring Fly is a pretty good reason to be exiled here.

I think this would require some degree of civility to work and, well, you can see the type of people we are dealing with here- not exactly calm, collected, and respectful types. I admit I dish it out too even if it's only in return.

I don't think an impartial jury exists either. It's a good idea though for the proper setting. They should do this on TV. I think I've seen some youtubes where they used to do this back in the day.

I don't think I ever claimed not to have read the 9/11 commission report. I have read a chunk of it, albeit years ago. I think we both know that I know how to spell "wave" so stop "lying".

Do you know the difference between investigating and reviewing someone else's investigation and passing on the highlights which the original investigators tell you to pass on? The commission reviewed the government's investigation and gave us the uncritical, filtered cliff notes. That is stated in the first paragraph of the thing you cut and pasted, but apparently did not read yourself. Actually comparing the commission summary Cliff Notes is way too generous to the commission report. Cliff notes will actually go into some detail. Like in the cliff notes about a book the character names are used and parenthetical references abound. You don't get anything like that here. I urge you to actually read the thing before you further comment on it.



I thought we were discussing what the commission report said about the put options. Does the commission report name the newsletter?

Going outside the report, the fact that there was a newsletter that has a name and recommended put options on one airline means nothing. There are such recommendations issued DAILY. It doesn't somehow result in an ANOMALY by definition of ANOMALY does it? You can probably find some newsletter where some number of people happened to buy options or short sell a stock that was trading on inside information. That doesn't in any way preclude insider trading.

As far as my using the word "distributor" wrongly lol. Are we in a court of law here? And no, I don't necessarily mean the writer or the editor. If there was a guilty person associated with the newsletter it could be anyone associated, not just the editor(s).

If you want to see a real analysis of the statistical significance of the trades based on the historical distribution of the trades, which is completely absent from the commission report, read the paper I linked to. There are equations in it but don't be too frightened. Just read the first few pages and the last to get what it's saying.

Again, please link me to another serious study which contradicts if you can find one. The 9/11 report had waving doesn't cut it for me or anyone with more than a few brain cells working together.

Just read the paper. He did not imply that.

Here is the SEC report.

http://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com...sec-report.pdf

9/11 Secrecy Prolongs Warmaking and NSA Excess. 21 February 2014

John Young, a retired New York based architect
http://cryptome.org/2014/02/911-secrecy-war.htm

Yo this list is actually like the strongest possible evidence imaginable for my side. The US Military couldn't keep relatively small scale coverups like Tillman and Lynch together despite essentially no witnesses who weren't on military payroll.

And, this is where you break down badly, what are you relying on to say that Tillman was a coverup? What are you relying on to know about Iran-Contra? Official government investigations after the fact. Which you trust.

Well, 9/11 has one of those. But it's full of lies, apparently? Lies on a MASSIVE SCALE?

Also, yes, congratulations, you figured out that people are ****ty. I think you'll find my theory of 9/11(a.k.a. "the truth") relies pretty heavily on some pretty terrible people flying airplanes into buildings.

I labeled it precedent, not evidence. Nonetheless, I'll bite: How do you figure? ...

So your stance is that it couldn't have happened that way because U.S. spooks are in fact aware of their uneven record regarding successful secrecy, and would be too afraid to attempt it in the first place because of that? Help me follow.

Well no, not really.

In any event, I just asked you to explain the distinction. Where the dividing line is with 9/11. How is it different for you from all the other times you recognize the depravity of men in power? How is their story, on this one anyway, gospel? Because it seems right? Because men in power would never kill their own people to such a grand scale?

Or does the difference (as you see it) lie in the belief they could never keep it a secret? I'm just asking you if you think they're capable, on ethical grounds, of facilitating it.

You mean besides Donald Rumsfeld's resignation? I dunno, stuff like Bryan O'Neal's testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The comprehensive From the Wilderness report , written by Army veteran and West Point faculty member Stan Goff, that broke the story in the first place. There's plenty more. Didn't think it was debatable any longer.

I'm not really sure what you're asking here. Are you disputing that Iran-Contra was an outed conspiracy showing remarkable precedent? Do we really need to go there?

OK, I think I follow you. You're claiming I'm showing inconsistency because I somehow buy the govt investigation into Iran-Contra but not the one for 9/11?

Your logic is torturous at this point. But if you really want me to go into the distinction I make, I can do that. Just to be clear, however, I wouldn't say the Iran-Contra investigation was very thorough either. Not with all that we now know.

Undoubtedly, long before you did. You seem new to a lot of this subject material, and your first volleys involve a lot of long-crushed coincidence theory. Don't do this lazily, if you're going to do it at all.

Oh, I have no doubt yours does. I can tell already that you are part of the 15% of people who believe it ALL went down just as Keane-Hamilton said (and didn't say) it did.

One of the main problems for people like you, however, is that both Kean and Hamilton themselves have long-since admitted that their own report - the one you curiously hold overhead as gospel - was a farce.

The author cites the widespread opinion of his associates and other known experts in supporting the prima facie evidence for undertaking his investigation. It's right in the first few paragraphs.

This is not an academic paper from a peer reviewed journal. This is a heavily redacted portion of the assumed source material "reviewed" by the 9/11 commission.

Have you read this? I skimmed over it, in particular the section dealing with American Airlines options. I didn't see any equations. I didn't read anything about distributions. What this says is that they talked to the mystery investor, he told them some stuff about choosing that airline to short based on a departing flight information, and it is implied in this report that that is sufficient explanation. I doubt this is the process by which the SEC normally investigates insider trading, like they see a suspicious fortuitous trade and as long as the investor can concoct some alternative explanation then it's all good.

Publicly available data that influences the value of airplane stock comes out all the time and people react to it all the time. This data varies. You can always make an argument that no, you didn't have inside information, you were just looking at this or that chart and based your decision on that. The real indicator of insider trading is NOT someone's reasoning they offer you (unless they are giving themselves up). Rather, it's based on the abnormality of the trade and information that becomes public, which wasn't public before, that would figure to influence the future value of the trade and to which that suspected investor might have been privy.

The circumstantial evidence is provided in the academic paper I linked. This report, from what I see, says very little about the circumstantial evidence in terms of significance i.e. statistical significance. But it recognizes the prima facie evidence and probes for some direct evidence. But very little about that probe is shared. And from what is shared it looks like they really didn't do ****. Meanwhile this elephant of circumstantial evidence remains in the room completely unacknowledged.

This is what I meant to say. Great post.

Yes Deuces, an investigation that involves interviewing the people who did the trade trumps your academic paper. Yes Deuces, an insider trading investigation involves looking for trades that might be abnormal through statistical methods and then interviewing those that made the trades to see of there was an insider trading link.

One good point is a practice decried by, among others, the 9/11 commission. That The federal government for years has been guilty of overclassification. Obviously, there is material that needs to be kept secret; no one should reveal troop movements.
But there are many documents shrouded in darkness whose content should be known to the American people.

95 million records have been created and classified in the year 2012

Snowden argued that his leaked documents were "unambiguously necessary for public ends" and that their classification as secret threatened democracy.

"The decline of democracy begins when the domain of the government expands beyond the borders of its public's knowledge," he insisted.

"It can no longer hold the most senior members of its society to necessary account for serious wrongdoing because the evidence of that wrongdoing is itself a secret."

Jiggs, did you edit my post into individual sentences before you even started to read it? LOL this stream of consciousness posting style makes you seem like an illiterate. You know that, right?

"And, this is where you break down badly, what are you relying on to say that Tillman was a coverup? What are you relying on to know about Iran-Contra? Official government investigations after the fact. Which you trust."

Jiggs you broke this 3.5 sentence paragraph into well over a page of you desperately flailing at random bull**** line by line, and at the end you didn't even get to the extremely straightforward implication.

Maybe if you worked on your "reading for comprehension" skills you wouldn't be a ****ing truther. At the very least your posts would be readable.


Like the bolded here. Maybe the next few words I wrote will help you follow? LOL. Naw you better guess at what I maybe meant and ASK MORE QUESTIONS. That's how Jiggsy wins.

[huge edit]


Do what? Believe in half-assed nonsense conspiracies? Yeah, I've chosen to not do that at all.

Fly, not taking a shot at you but did you love and trust the federal govt as much as you do now when Bush was in the WH?

1) we're talking about something that happened during the Bush administration. Both the attacks and the investigation.

2) The **** does that even mean? Like anyone who isn't a drooling conspiritard MUST BY DEFINITION love and trust the federal government, and the ONLY REASON I think an airplane hit the Pentagon MUST BE that I blindly love and trust the federal government? It's impossible, IMPOSSIBLE, that someone could evaluate the evidence of what happened on 9/11 and see an Al Qaeda directed terrorist event?

**** you, for real. I mean that. People died on that day. Real human beings. You trivialize that with this nonsense.

P.S. The federal government is actually thousands and thousands of individual people, dude, maybe you weren't aware.


I have no patience for truthers because there is NO EXCUSE to be one(there are plenty of debunking tumblrs and Youtubes out there FFS), and this ****ing nonsense where truthers win arguments by harassing random strangers on the internet into Googling for them? It's transparent. You want to make "what happened on 9/11" a test of OTHER people's research skills? Give me a ****ing break.

You still didn't answer the original question. Being a truther or conspiratard has nothing to do with anything. The question was more about your posts in politics threads in general. Your position is always that the govt is honest, just and correct. Govt can't do any wrong or get big enough. IRL I've never met people that love govt as much as you and a couple other posters in this forum.

I believe 911 was done by Al Q alone and I agree with more Obama policies then I disagree with. But I also think many aspects of govt are corrupt, incompetent, hypocritical and dishonest.

Not insulting you, just find it interseting that you hold these views. Were you views on the integrity and size of govt the same during the Bush administration?

You seem to be reading an awful lot into Fly's posts that is clearly not there.

So he doesn't support the govt on every issue?

That has never been my impression, but I'll let him answer for himself.