Confirmed Fly doesn't know what a straw man is.

How it works for Fly is "supported" = government says it's so. After the government gives the nod, other facts unchanged, then it becomes magically supported. This is undoubtedly the same magic contained in the commission report that allows it to give support by omission, inscrutability, and baseless affirmations.

other than Deuces McCracken who were the terrible politics posters in 2014

Dip**** doesn't even realize the academic paper doesn't claim to do what he thinks it does, nor does he know how insider trading investigations work. Stick to limping 7s, getting owned by Ikes, and having adventures in Duckburg.

Sure, just go on believing that open-raising 7s is correct because that's what your poker books tell you. Don't ask questions, have faith in everything Theory of Poker tells you.

I don't know if raising 7s is right or not. I'm just asking questions and everyone calls me a limptard or other names. Has anyone ever proven that limping 7s isn't correct? Why does ToP completely blow off any discussion of open-limping? What is it hiding?

Hey, Deuces, remember when you thought the report "hand waived" the put options theory? Which was a lie, you had no idea what the commission said about that theory, but it was a lie you thought you could get away with because at the time you didn't know what the commission report said AND YOU ASSUMED NOBODY ELSE COULD FIND OUT?

Things sure have changed since then.

LOL you assume your pathological inability to engage in ****ing basic research is contagious or something. People who really have questions will spend the 15 seconds trying to find answers! This is what we in the poker game call "a tell".

Deuces you think a missile hit the ****ing Pentagon. You base this theory on there NOT BEING FOOTAGE of an airplane hitting the Pentagon. You think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition based on literally nothing, despite it being entirely implausible at every level.

Don't try to tell me I have ****ty standards for things being supported.

He based WTC7 on thinking it looked like a demolition to his expert eye.

Lol Deuces

I raise 77 UTG.

He does. You don't

My favorite part about the "just asking questions" bull**** is when you argue with people like you for awhile, it never takes long before they go full on conspiritard. Why don't you just start this way? Do you think it lends credibility if you say you're "just asking questions" first? It doesn't.

I thought WTC 7 was based on "pull it". Damning stuff.


Why hasn't ShaneG alluded to the lying whore 9/11 widows in this thread? That's more proof right there.

You should lobby to get this put into the commission report addendum.

I know exactly what the academic paper claims. You apparently don't. You refuse to actually discuss it but rather make blanket nonsense statements about the SEC report "trumping" the academic paper. In reality they are not even the same type of inquiry. But in your over simplified, uneducated ignorant view gubmint > egghead, gubmint win yay!

Jiggs, Al Qaida did 9/11. The US Government did not directly help them.

So you think the US Government indirectly helped them?

When you reduce your opponent to just saying things which have no factual basis I guess you win? Or are you just playing dead and have some dramatic trump card you are waiting to play?

Of course I remember when I thought the commission hand waived away the put options- I thought that then and I think it now. I have thought that continuously since I read the footnote the dedicated to it years ago. Nothing has changed Fly. It's not a lie. You pasted it right in here but I don't think you have read it, or you're counting on other people not reading it?

The footnote in the commission report is a review of a review that doesn't rise to Cliff notes level of revelation. That is evident to anyone who reads it.

Another candidate for the commission report addendum. Why didn't you tell the world this earlier huehue? Doing so would have saved everyone a lot of trouble.

The academic paper showed trading that could be consistent with someone knowing about the attacks in advance. Stats can't prove someone knew in advance, which is why when spastically anomalous trades are flagged the government investigates the people who made those trades further.

The government investigated the people who actually made the trades and found no link.

The paper does not imply that the financial analyst community has come to a general consensus that traders knew of 9/11 in advance.

Not complicated. No wonder you are a running joke on here.

Fly accuses me of lying because we apparently have a difference of opinion about the nature of the 9/11 commission report. Then he straight up lies about what I actually think.

I never said I think a missle hit the building and I don't think that. I never said there isn't footage of a plane hitting the building and I don't think that. I think the idea for building 7 being a controlled demolition is a possibility and I gave my support for that. We disagree about that possibility. A little update on that. I did watch a BBC doc on building 7, geared toward debunking the demolition theory. They also confirmed that ALL the steel was taken away for scrap and the NIST scientists had NONE of it to examine. You hear that Trolley- the NIST people had NONE of the steel. So I incidentally was exposed to some of the NIST research that I claim is inherently invalid. I was not impressed, expecting more than some melting rivet domino theory.

You are the one taking affirmative positions- not me. I am not the one in need of support, except for the ongoing need for an actual investigation. No matter how much you lie and say I think this or I think that or said this or that, it doesn't make it true.

I'm not saying you have ****ty standards for things being supported. I am saying you have no standards.

Dey took ur WTC7 steel!

Deuces when you talking about missing Pentagon footage you don't get to fall back on "oh I'm just saying it's AWFULLY SUSPICIOUS that there isn't footage" bull****.

That's not how it works. When you are just asking questions about the Pentagon footage the ONLY implication is that "they" are covering up what actually hit the Pentagon.

Deuces, imagine that you lol gave a **** and were sincere.

If you got your "real" investigation at the time, with all the investigatory power necessary and chaperoned by the most trustworthy people imaginable, what odds would you place on that investigation revealing that what struck the Pentagon was American Airlines flight 77?

"Oh I don't know, that's why we need an investigation!!!!1"= "I think it was a missile", just FWIW. Nobody is required to pretend this **** is serious and you're just an interested observer of recent history

Can you point out the part where I went "full conspiratard"? Again, I am with the 25% of the world that doesn't know what happened. Oh ok I see you left yourself and out by saying "people like me".

I don't know if there is much evidence for what you say about conspiratards trying to take cover under the veil of "just asking questions". There are a lot of people who have full blown conspiracy theories. They pretty much let you know what they think from the start. They are not usually trying to take cover. They are convinced of something and they want you to be too. That's my experience talking to people and that's what seems to be the case in this forum. Did Shane G mince words when he put the word "hollywood" (iirc) in his thread title? And if someone says they are "just asking questions" why not just take them at face value? Because it's easier to argue with a conspiratard than someone who just wants to see the evidence before they believe the government (a government that came into power they way bush did) on literally world changing, treasury depleting verdicts?

I will tell you straight up that I believe Bush supporters rigged the election in 2000 in Florida. This is a conspiracy theory. If I had to guess (though I am not sure) I would say believers in that conspiracy are smaller in number, making my opinion a smaller minority than even the opinion that 9/11 was an inside job. I am not ashamed of my opinions on the stolen election nor do I modulate them to placate people inclined to go with the flow/believe the official line. I will argue it all day with no pretense of "just asking questions".

Fly, I asked you another direct question. Try and answer it this time, and not 7 posts later, via exhaustive prodding:

If the two commissioners of the gospel you champion have openly called their work on the matter a farce, are you sure you wanna continue heralding it? Let's at least hash that part out before we continue.

Agreed. Now please get my narrative down pat before attempting to "correct" me. It's well documented here.

Sure. But then they (like you) generally do two things

1. Don't accept the answers they are given even though they have been shown to be correct.

2. Focus on one tangential event (like, say, oh, the put options) in order to prop up their ghost story.

Do you not understand that in a large scale event like this, there will always be things that dont quite add up? Just the nature of things. But that doesnt matter, you just want to keep the dream alive because it spices up your dull life, makes you feel important, or whatever sad reason you have for continuing to go back to this.

No. The paper showed that the trading IS (not could be) consistent with someone knowing about the attacks in advance to a degree of certainty. It's true that the analysis of the paper cannot prove someone associated with the trades knew about the attacks in advance. But it can show the degree of likelihood to which this is true. The likelihood found in this paper is well within the convention of what is considered significant or compelling. So for example if this paper was analyzing the effectiveness of a drug designed to give someone the ability to predict stock prices, based on the data alone, the researcher would say the drug works. In practice they would still suspect insider trading but let's just assume they rule that out in the design somehow. (I know that example is too abstract for you...queue the charges of deuces thinking future predicting drugs exist).


This is factually false and you would know that if you had bothered to read the heavily redacted memorandum you linked to and in which you place so much faith. The government, in this case meaning at least the SEC and the FBI, interviewed the traders but did not investigate them. There is a difference and it's not trivial or semantic. If you polled any group outside of an insane asylum asking whether they would rather be interviewed or investigated by an law enforcement or regulatory agency, you can be assured there would be a near 100% complete bias toward opting for just the interview.

What the report says is that the traders, whose identities are not revealed, gave them some alternative reasons why they invested the way they did and that the SEC chose to believe their story. But we don't know the reasoning and we can't read the interview. Unlike in the academic paper, there is no work shown at all and that is my problem with the information that the government offers up as their investigation. They only tell us what to think, not why to think it. There is literally nothing but unsupported claims in what you linked, which is, again, a "memorandum that summarizes the scope and results". This is not the SEC investigation investigation report itself. That is classified. They will let us see that in 50 years when we all have Alzheimer's. And as far as the scope goes btw, they refuse to even give the list of what other countries they worked with. So that tells you something about the scope of what they reveal about their scope.


That is your opinion, which you have yet to support. Yet you keep bringing it up. It's important to you, isn't it? what the consensus among the authority figures is, huh? We can disagree on the implication of consensus in the paper. But the fact remains that very many highly respected experts across a variety of disciplines believe that there was insider trading.