Reloaded: Is THIS an impeachable offense? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Simple_Min · 06-16-2003, 06:12 AM

Yep, I'm at it again.

Ok maybe not impeaching of the president, but the whole administration is caught up in this dirty bomb.

I dobut anything will happen, because similar reports have existed around the Pearl Harbor attacks as well. Naturallly, our republican buddies do not want any bad rap about their supreme leader to spread so ofcourse there is no investigation into this matter.

Nonetheless, there is plenty of other news sources if you wish to read up on this...no surprise all/most of them are European who are not afraid of being labelled "unpatriotic."

Quote:

The insider trading involves the placement of large numbers of “put” options on stocks of companies directly affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. They include United Air Lines, American Air Lines, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, AXA Reinsurance, Munich Reinsurance and Swiss Reinsurance. Put options are a leveraged bet that a stock’s price will fall dramatically.

As CBS news noted on Sept. 26, the peak of trading activity occurred just before the attacks. There was a jump in United Air Line’s put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between Sept. 6 and Sept.10, and 285 times higher than average on Sept. 6. Numbers for other affected stocks were equally alarming. It is uncontested that only United and American stocks had this level of put buying before the attacks. No other airlines were affected.

http://www.thepowerhour.com/editoria...1-warnings.htm

Dilbert1234567 · 06-16-2003, 08:23 AM

jesus, thats kinda like wow, an di thought all the people who think it was stages were crazy

Sparhawk · 06-16-2003, 08:36 AM

Once you get past the froth-mouthed drivel, the trading levels do seem indicative of something... Especially if it was only United and American. Hard to believe it'd be americans doing the trading though, more likely bin laden and his cronies (the ones who knew exactly which airlines). Still, a very improbable stretch.

smooth · 06-16-2003, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
more likely bin laden and his cronies (the ones who knew exactly which airlines).

This has been my opinion.

4thTimeLucky · 06-17-2003, 03:29 AM

It seems quite obvious that this was Bin Laden and friends making "put" options. In fact I expect that if you looked at the raw figures (rather than just the fact they jumped by 96 times) you'll see that the jump could be explained easily in light of the many millions that Bin Laden and his friends own in offshore accounts.

Also, it should be possible for all of these trades to be traced back to bank accounts.

seretogis · 06-17-2003, 05:47 AM

George W Bush = 11 letters.

9/11 -- omgoodness, 11? 11 letters? 11th of September? THIS EXPLAINS EVERYTHING!

Simple_Min · 06-17-2003, 09:43 AM

Bin Laden? Sure, probably some of the activity.

Cia? It's hard to believe it did not know/forsee it coming...where we go from here is up to you.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/051...trades_co.html

tisonlyi · 06-17-2003, 11:59 AM

If a set of men would be willing to send 10's of thousands of their citizens to die needlessly in a hopeless war (vietnam), why would anyone think they would flinch at a plan to distract from their domestic incompetence by doing the same, but on home soil?

There are a good many faces from the Nixon administration hanging around this President.

Anyone feel a bit more uncomfortable?

*awaits roasting*

geep · 06-17-2003, 02:14 PM

Nixon didn't send them to Vietnam. I believe that would have been Kennedy. Kennedy has enough controversy going on- he doesn't need any more.

4thTimeLucky · 06-17-2003, 02:25 PM

It does happen, but I don't think that's the case here.

A classic example seems to be the bombing in Moscow that led to the Russian crackdown in Chechnya. If anyone has some good links on that then please post them - I'm not in google mood tonight.

However its one thing to blow up some appartment blocks, its another to destroy the heart of your financial capital and plunge your economy deeper in recession.

tisonlyi · 06-18-2003, 10:45 AM

The russians were stupendously obvious in blowing up their own as a method deflecting attention away from the hideous state of their economy and humiliation upon humiliation since the soviet system started to crumble...

Pogroms and villification of a weaker/weak enemy/section of society are used consistantly through history as a means of controlling the serfs when they get a bit too uppety about what their governments or elected <insert cough here> leaders are up to, or not up to, as the case may be.

"Mr President, welcome to the oval office. From movements in the bond and stock markets over the past years, we can be pretty sure the US economy is going to head into a pretty unsavoury spell of recession. Unless you can cook up a dirty great distraction - I'm afraid you're going to go the way of yo' papa."

I'm only half tongue in cheek here...

Lovely things like the actions of Bush straight after the first plane went in... The lack of a missile air defence for washington/new york (plenty of the major cities around the world have a limited set of these... particularly around their main points of defence, government and finance... think: Pentagon, Whitehouse and World Trade Center)... The strange things the Vice-HeartAttack-In-Chief was saying... Zero fighters sent to intercept the other 2 planes after the first plane went into the WTC (any hijacked plane normally acquires a military escourt AS SOON AS IT'S REPORTED OR DEDUCED that the plane is not under the control of it's pilot)...

It stinks. To high, high heaven.

tisonlyi - awaiting knock on the door from the men in black.

OH, and it was NOT kenedy who sent over the vast numbers of US troops to vietnam. Those honours fall on Johnson and Nixon.

FACT.

Sippy · 06-18-2003, 12:48 PM

How can you connect unusual shorting stocks of these companies to Bush or the Bush adminstration?

These organizations that pulled off the attacks are tremendously financially savvy and it is more likely it is they who shorted the stocks as they knew what they were about to do and would surely make large profits form the falling stock. Follow the money not unreasonable hatred of republican administrations to get to the bottom of this one.

Sippy · 06-18-2003, 01:01 PM

Vietnam was miguided no doubt but I don't see how you can stretch that into a conspiracy of the Bush admin to kill 3000 Americans.

Um, and yeah, Kennedy / Johnson, um not Nixon Republicans. Besides, the Bush administration looks more like the Reagan admin than Nixon's.

I understand that alot of people can't stand Bush or any Republicans. I also understand alot of people hated Clinton and the Democrats. Me, I am an equal oppurtunity hater, I think they are all one in the same.

As for this economic conspiracy pablum that peopel bring up. Go take some Economics 101. The economy as a whole does not particularly care who is in office at the moment. Many government policies take years to actually show up in the economic numbers. Clinton was lucky he was President duringa prosperous time. The econlomy was already receding on it's own well before Bush took office. It may well be that Clinton benefitted from Reagan/Bush era policy enacted well before he took office.

I have a hard time believeing anything so sinsiter is goig on peopel. Don't let your political affiliations and partisan loyalty blind you.

edit: sorry mb grammar and spelling

06-16-2003, 08:23 AM	#2 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	jesus, thats kinda like wow, an di thought all the people who think it was stages were crazy __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

06-16-2003, 08:36 AM	#3 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	Once you get past the froth-mouthed drivel, the trading levels do seem indicative of something... Especially if it was only United and American. Hard to believe it'd be americans doing the trading though, more likely bin laden and his cronies (the ones who knew exactly which airlines). Still, a very improbable stretch. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

06-17-2003, 03:29 AM	#5 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	It seems quite obvious that this was Bin Laden and friends making "put" options. In fact I expect that if you looked at the raw figures (rather than just the fact they jumped by 96 times) you'll see that the jump could be explained easily in light of the many millions that Bin Laden and his friends own in offshore accounts. Also, it should be possible for all of these trades to be traced back to bank accounts. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

06-17-2003, 05:47 AM	#6 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	George W Bush = 11 letters. 9/11 -- omgoodness, 11? 11 letters? 11th of September? THIS EXPLAINS EVERYTHING! __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

06-17-2003, 09:43 AM	#7 (permalink)
Simple_Min Insane Location: The Local Group	Bin Laden? Sure, probably some of the activity. Cia? It's hard to believe it did not know/forsee it coming...where we go from here is up to you. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html http://www.americanfreepress.net/051...trades_co.html __________________ If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

06-17-2003, 11:59 AM	#8 (permalink)
tisonlyi Nothing	If a set of men would be willing to send 10's of thousands of their citizens to die needlessly in a hopeless war (vietnam), why would anyone think they would flinch at a plan to distract from their domestic incompetence by doing the same, but on home soil? There are a good many faces from the Nixon administration hanging around this President. Anyone feel a bit more uncomfortable? awaits roasting

06-17-2003, 02:14 PM	#9 (permalink)
geep Insane Location: Imprisoned in Ecotopia	Nixon didn't send them to Vietnam. I believe that would have been Kennedy. Kennedy has enough controversy going on- he doesn't need any more.

06-17-2003, 02:25 PM	#10 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	It does happen, but I don't think that's the case here. A classic example seems to be the bombing in Moscow that led to the Russian crackdown in Chechnya. If anyone has some good links on that then please post them - I'm not in google mood tonight. However its one thing to blow up some appartment blocks, its another to destroy the heart of your financial capital and plunge your economy deeper in recession. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

06-18-2003, 10:45 AM	#11 (permalink)
tisonlyi Nothing	The russians were stupendously obvious in blowing up their own as a method deflecting attention away from the hideous state of their economy and humiliation upon humiliation since the soviet system started to crumble... Pogroms and villification of a weaker/weak enemy/section of society are used consistantly through history as a means of controlling the serfs when they get a bit too uppety about what their governments or elected <insert cough here> leaders are up to, or not up to, as the case may be. "Mr President, welcome to the oval office. From movements in the bond and stock markets over the past years, we can be pretty sure the US economy is going to head into a pretty unsavoury spell of recession. Unless you can cook up a dirty great distraction - I'm afraid you're going to go the way of yo' papa." I'm only half tongue in cheek here... Lovely things like the actions of Bush straight after the first plane went in... The lack of a missile air defence for washington/new york (plenty of the major cities around the world have a limited set of these... particularly around their main points of defence, government and finance... think: Pentagon, Whitehouse and World Trade Center)... The strange things the Vice-HeartAttack-In-Chief was saying... Zero fighters sent to intercept the other 2 planes after the first plane went into the WTC (any hijacked plane normally acquires a military escourt AS SOON AS IT'S REPORTED OR DEDUCED that the plane is not under the control of it's pilot)... It stinks. To high, high heaven. tisonlyi - awaiting knock on the door from the men in black. OH, and it was NOT kenedy who sent over the vast numbers of US troops to vietnam. Those honours fall on Johnson and Nixon. FACT.

06-18-2003, 12:48 PM	#12 (permalink)
Sippy Upright	How can you connect unusual shorting stocks of these companies to Bush or the Bush adminstration? These organizations that pulled off the attacks are tremendously financially savvy and it is more likely it is they who shorted the stocks as they knew what they were about to do and would surely make large profits form the falling stock. Follow the money not unreasonable hatred of republican administrations to get to the bottom of this one.

06-18-2003, 01:01 PM	#13 (permalink)
Sippy Upright	Vietnam was miguided no doubt but I don't see how you can stretch that into a conspiracy of the Bush admin to kill 3000 Americans. Um, and yeah, Kennedy / Johnson, um not Nixon Republicans. Besides, the Bush administration looks more like the Reagan admin than Nixon's. I understand that alot of people can't stand Bush or any Republicans. I also understand alot of people hated Clinton and the Democrats. Me, I am an equal oppurtunity hater, I think they are all one in the same. As for this economic conspiracy pablum that peopel bring up. Go take some Economics 101. The economy as a whole does not particularly care who is in office at the moment. Many government policies take years to actually show up in the economic numbers. Clinton was lucky he was President duringa prosperous time. The econlomy was already receding on it's own well before Bush took office. It may well be that Clinton benefitted from Reagan/Bush era policy enacted well before he took office. I have a hard time believeing anything so sinsiter is goig on peopel. Don't let your political affiliations and partisan loyalty blind you. edit: sorry mb grammar and spelling Last edited by Sippy; 06-18-2003 at 01:04 PM..