Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Len Colby]

I've replied to the 'side show' above on "my" thread. I was wondering if any more evidence of insider trading will be forth coming?

There's plenty of evidence already, thanks to some excellent posts from Duane and David Guyatt.

Like so many other controversial issues, there seems to be significant suspicion concerning this one too. I guess it follows automatically that if 9/11 was a false flag operation, then those who had foreknowledge might want to profit financially from that foreknowledge.

Thanks to Duane and David for their informative postings on this issue. Your points are well made and merit consideration, despite all the noisy, vitriolic interference coming from Heckle and Jeckle.

David hasn’t yet offered any evidence that there was “insider trading” other than indicating based on reports soon after the attacks he suspected there was. He indicated he thought the author of Duane’s 1st article was a bit of a fool (he used more “colorful language” - LOL).

Duane has only cited two articles both of which made similar points and where written a few weeks after the attacks which weren’t written by people with backgrounds in finance and were very paltry on documentation. Both deemed the AMR and UAL put options suspicious for two reasons:

1) A very large number of them were sold in the days prior to the attacks.

2) By late November most of them had not been “exercised” (i.e. redeemed).

I offered reasonable explanations for both; no one has yet tried to refute my arguments.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Len, your arguments are, I think, fascile and growing increasingly absurd --- even to the nth degree, I think.

Last night it rained, although I was asleep and didn't see it or hear it. But I woke up and the ground was sogging. I have absolutely no proof that it did rain, but I am able to deduct that it rained because of the aftermath. Either that or a mighty great dog or horse trundled by the house early in the morning. Which of the two is likely do you think? Sure, I could tune into the TV or internet and look at weather reports. If these said it rained than it is fair to conclude that my deduction was logical and reasonable.

Deductive reasoning isn't proof. It's deductive. You don't have to be a Sherlock either. No one here is trying to build a case to take to court where absolute proof is required. That is the place for lawyers, not writers or journalists or other interested parties. The latter need only provide beyond reasonable grounds for demonstrating something happened by showing connections etc.

None of us are part of the government and therefore do not have access to inside or classified information. This obviously hinders everyone of us to providing absolute proof. That is the purpose of classification. Not just to hide information from competitors and enemies but also from the domestic population.

Disregarding media reports when it suits your argument, as you are currently doing, is just being intellectually barren and ethically disengenuous. Needless to say, perhaps, but you are quick to post media reports as factual corollaries to your arguments when it suits your purposes. Often you post more links to stories than one can shake a stick at.

It's a case of heads you win, tails everyone else loses.

This debating technique if familiar to many of us who have seen it used numerous times before and that is why people here increasingly consider you to be a spoiler with a hidden agenda.

I don't know if that is true or not, but you're damned well going out of your way to bolster that impression, I think.

In regard to your latter points above, the put options were sufficiently suspicious to trigger investigations by a number of different regulators in a number of different nations. That fact alone should be enough to engage our suspicions that something was amiss because multiple independent (if such a term can be applied to government inquiries) investigations of this sort are not rare. It didn't suprise me one little bit that the information gathered during these investigations was not made public. I would have been astonished if it had, in fact.

On the issue of exercising the put options, it is not incumbent - or necessary- for the option buyer to exercise it thus forcing them/him to purchase the underlying assets at the contracted strike price. Instead, they can simply arrange to have a call option written once the price of the underlying asset has plummeted, due to the foreseen events. The put and the call option cancel each other out and only the profit or loss moves between the contracted parties. The rapid growth of the derivative market has taken precedence over the old "short sale" and "long buy" that used to be used in their place with cash movements being a fraction of what used to be required under the older method. In other words, exercising an option is only one possibility. It depends on the strategy in play at the time. Over emphasis on this issue may well be nothing more than a red herring designed to confuse the public who are not at all knowledgeable about these matters.

This deflection (if that is what it is?) reminds me of a newspaper report in the Daily Torygraph awhile back that sought to downplay the uncomfortable background of the recently deceased Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. It was a masterful exhibition of half truths. The article worked hard to decry that the Prince had been a nazi and denied flatly that at the Prince's wedding to Juliana that the nazi anthem, Deutchland Uber Alles, had been sung by the guests, insisting it had not. What the article did not say, however, was that the other Nazi anthem the Horst Wessel Song had been sung by all present. Meanwhile, the Prince had been a member of the SS -- the newspaper denials to the contrary.

You are therefore correct to say that no one has refuted your arguments. Perhaps that is because there is scant need to.

David

[Duane Daman]

I've replied to the 'side show' above on "my" thread. I was wondering if any more evidence of insider trading will be forth coming?

There's plenty of evidence already, thanks to some excellent posts from Duane and David Guyatt.

Like so many other controversial issues, there seems to be significant suspicion concerning this one too. I guess it follows automatically that if 9/11 was a false flag operation, then those who had foreknowledge might want to profit financially from that foreknowledge.

Thanks to Duane and David for their informative postings on this issue. Your points are well made and merit consideration, despite all the noisy, vitriolic interference coming from Heckle and Jeckle.

David hasn’t yet offered any evidence that there was “insider trading” other than indicating based on reports soon after the attacks he suspected there was. He indicated he thought the author of Duane’s 1st article was a bit of a fool (he used more “colorful language” - LOL).

Duane has only cited two articles both of which made similar points and where written a few weeks after the attacks which weren’t written by people with backgrounds in finance and were very paltry on documentation. Both deemed the AMR and UAL put options suspicious for two reasons:

1) A very large number of them were sold in the days prior to the attacks.

2) By late November most of them had not been “exercised” (i.e. redeemed).

I offered reasonable explanations for both; no one has yet tried to refute my arguments.

Len ... Here's some more 9/11 put option evidence for you ... plus more .

9/11 was an Inside Job

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M9GV0DVvIdc&...ted&search=

[Duane Daman]

Len, your arguments are, I think, fascile and growing increasingly absurd --- even to the nth degree, I think.

Last night it rained, although I was asleep and didn't see it or hear it. But I woke up and the ground was sogging. I have absolutely no proof that it did rain, but I am able to deduct that it rained because of the aftermath. Either that or a mighty great dog or horse trundled by the house early in the morning. Which of the two is likely do you think? Sure, I could tune into the TV or internet and look at weather reports. If these said it rained than it is fair to conclude that my deduction was logical and reasonable.

Deductive reasoning isn't proof. It's deductive. You don't have to be a Sherlock either. No one here is trying to build a case to take to court where absolute proof is required. That is the place for lawyers, not writers or journalists or other interested parties. The latter need only provide beyond reasonable grounds for demonstrating something happened by showing connections etc.

None of us are part of the government and therefore do not have access to inside or classified information. This obviously hinders everyone of us to providing absolute proof. That is the purpose of classification. Not just to hide information from competitors and enemies but also from the domestic population.

Disregarding media reports when it suits your argument, as you are currently doing, is just being intellectually barren and ethically disengenuous. Needless to say, perhaps, but you are quick to post media reports as factual corollaries to your arguments when it suits your purposes. Often you post more links to stories than one can shake a stick at.

It's a case of heads you win, tails everyone else loses.

This debating technique if familiar to many of us who have seen it used numerous times before and that is why people here increasingly consider you to be a spoiler with a hidden agenda.

I don't know if that is true or not, but you're damned well going out of your way to bolster that impression, I think.

In regard to your latter points above, the put options were sufficiently suspicious to trigger investigations by a number of different regulators in a number of different nations. That fact alone should be enough to engage our suspicions that something was amiss because multiple independent (if such a term can be applied to government inquiries) investigations of this sort are not rare. It didn't suprise me one little bit that the information gathered during these investigations was not made public. I would have been astonished if it had, in fact.

On the issue of exercising the put options, it is not incumbent - or necessary- for the option buyer to exercise it thus forcing them/him to purchase the underlying assets at the contracted strike price. Instead, they can simply arrange to have a call option written once the price of the underlying asset has plummeted, due to the foreseen events. The put and the call option cancel each other out and only the profit or loss moves between the contracted parties. The rapid growth of the derivative market has taken precedence over the old "short sale" and "long buy" that used to be used in their place with cash movements being a fraction of what used to be required under the older method. In other words, exercising an option is only one possibility. It depends on the strategy in play at the time. Over emphasis on this issue may well be nothing more than a red herring designed to confuse the public who are not at all knowledgeable about these matters.

This deflection (if that is what it is?) reminds me of a newspaper report in the Daily Torygraph awhile back that sought to downplay the uncomfortable background of the recently deceased Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. It was a masterful exhibition of half truths. The article worked hard to decry that the Prince had been a nazi and denied flatly that at the Prince's wedding to Juliana that the nazi anthem, Deutchland Uber Alles, had been sung by the guests, insisting it had not. What the article did not say, however, was that the other Nazi anthem the Horst Wessel Song had been sung by all present. Meanwhile, the Prince had been a member of the SS -- the newspaper denials to the contrary.

You are therefore correct to say that no one has refuted your arguments. Perhaps that is because there is scant need to.

David

Excellent reply David ! ... ... I hope you don't mind me showing it again though my reply .... Some things just need to be repeated ..

[Jack White]

Len, your arguments are, I think, fascile and growing increasingly absurd --- even to the nth degree, I think.

Last night it rained, although I was asleep and didn't see it or hear it. But I woke up and the ground was sogging. I have absolutely no proof that it did rain, but I am able to deduct that it rained because of the aftermath. Either that or a mighty great dog or horse trundled by the house early in the morning. Which of the two is likely do you think? Sure, I could tune into the TV or internet and look at weather reports. If these said it rained than it is fair to conclude that my deduction was logical and reasonable.

Deductive reasoning isn't proof. It's deductive. You don't have to be a Sherlock either. No one here is trying to build a case to take to court where absolute proof is required. That is the place for lawyers, not writers or journalists or other interested parties. The latter need only provide beyond reasonable grounds for demonstrating something happened by showing connections etc.

None of us are part of the government and therefore do not have access to inside or classified information. This obviously hinders everyone of us to providing absolute proof. That is the purpose of classification. Not just to hide information from competitors and enemies but also from the domestic population.

Disregarding media reports when it suits your argument, as you are currently doing, is just being intellectually barren and ethically disengenuous. Needless to say, perhaps, but you are quick to post media reports as factual corollaries to your arguments when it suits your purposes. Often you post more links to stories than one can shake a stick at.

It's a case of heads you win, tails everyone else loses.

This debating technique if familiar to many of us who have seen it used numerous times before and that is why people here increasingly consider you to be a spoiler with a hidden agenda.

I don't know if that is true or not, but you're damned well going out of your way to bolster that impression, I think.

In regard to your latter points above, the put options were sufficiently suspicious to trigger investigations by a number of different regulators in a number of different nations. That fact alone should be enough to engage our suspicions that something was amiss because multiple independent (if such a term can be applied to government inquiries) investigations of this sort are not rare. It didn't suprise me one little bit that the information gathered during these investigations was not made public. I would have been astonished if it had, in fact.

On the issue of exercising the put options, it is not incumbent - or necessary- for the option buyer to exercise it thus forcing them/him to purchase the underlying assets at the contracted strike price. Instead, they can simply arrange to have a call option written once the price of the underlying asset has plummeted, due to the foreseen events. The put and the call option cancel each other out and only the profit or loss moves between the contracted parties. The rapid growth of the derivative market has taken precedence over the old "short sale" and "long buy" that used to be used in their place with cash movements being a fraction of what used to be required under the older method. In other words, exercising an option is only one possibility. It depends on the strategy in play at the time. Over emphasis on this issue may well be nothing more than a red herring designed to confuse the public who are not at all knowledgeable about these matters.

This deflection (if that is what it is?) reminds me of a newspaper report in the Daily Torygraph awhile back that sought to downplay the uncomfortable background of the recently deceased Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. It was a masterful exhibition of half truths. The article worked hard to decry that the Prince had been a nazi and denied flatly that at the Prince's wedding to Juliana that the nazi anthem, Deutchland Uber Alles, had been sung by the guests, insisting it had not. What the article did not say, however, was that the other Nazi anthem the Horst Wessel Song had been sung by all present. Meanwhile, the Prince had been a member of the SS -- the newspaper denials to the contrary.

You are therefore correct to say that no one has refuted your arguments. Perhaps that is because there is scant need to.

David

David...I must add you to my list of "must read" intelligent and perceptive

correspondents on the forum. The above is a masterful analysis of the most

active provocateur on the forum...who's all air and no substance. You have

shown that grace, intelligence and wit are a more effective putdown than

insults and ad hominem personal invective.

Jack

[Len Colby]

David I must congratulate you that was a very well written post you write with a verve I'm can only dream about but as Kevin pointed out on the other thread the substance of it doesn't go much beyond saying 'the truth is so obvious it's not worth debating'.

I'll reply at length sometime tomorrow.

[Mark Stapleton]

First class post, David.

Let's hope Len gives some thought to the points you made.

[Mark Stapleton]

David I must congratulate you that was a very well written post you write with a verve I'm can only dream about but as Kevin pointed out on the other thread the substance of it doesn't go much beyond saying 'the truth is so obvious it's not worth debating'.

I'll reply at length sometime tomorrow.

Obviously a cross post as I hadn't read your post when I posted mine.

Please, save yourself the trouble and don't bother posting a reply to David. You'll only be carved up. It's clear that David has expertise in this area and you have no chance of matching it.

I doubt even your tiny band of devotees will enjoy the spectacle.

Tell him, Craig.

[William Kelly]

Anthony thanks for the note. I have posted info about it on ten big city daily web sites. Since it is published by U. of Cal. it could appeal to various tweedy people who are worried about being kicked out of the middle class if they read a 9/11 book.

Here is a listing should you want to do some free-lance publicity.

http://www.usnpl.com/

PDS's book is indeed now available.

I have my copy and will post a review when I finish reading it.

BK

[Guest David Guyatt]

David I must congratulate you that was a very well written post you write with a verve I'm can only dream about but as Kevin pointed out on the other thread the substance of it doesn't go much beyond saying 'the truth is so obvious it's not worth debating'.

I'll reply at length sometime tomorrow.

Len, please don't go putting words in my mouth. I think we all here enjoy a debate and some even are prepared to be guided by new information and even modify their opinions accordingly. That, I think is what good debate is all about --- sharing information and growing from the greater knowledge gained.

However, there is no substance to what you attribute as my position that the: "truth being so obvious it isn't worth debating".

It's just not worth debating for the sake of debating; for the intellectual stimulus debating provides. This is especially true, I think, when one utterly disregards the content of a post but focuses instead on scoring points on details that are (moreor less) inconsequential.

On the other hand, a debate of substance is something I care about very much. An as an old timer I am happy (and even sometimes embarrassed) to be the beneficiary of new info that changes my worldview.

I also try (and routinely fail obviously) to be entirely honest. That's the nature of the individual shadow complex each of us is endowed with.

Catch you out, he will -- tricksy bugger that he/she is. And I can speak with long experience about this personal Golem of ours--- the remnants of egg on my face day in day out. But try I do.

David

[Guest David Guyatt]

David I must congratulate you that was a very well written post you write with a verve I'm can only dream about but as Kevin pointed out on the other thread the substance of it doesn't go much beyond saying 'the truth is so obvious it's not worth debating'.

I'll reply at length sometime tomorrow.

Len, please don't go putting words in my mouth. I think we all here enjoy a debate and some even are prepared to be guided by new information and even modify their opinions accordingly. That, I think is what good debate is all about --- sharing information and growing from the greater knowledge gained.

However, there is no substance to what you attribute as my position that the: "truth being so obvious it isn't worth debating".

It's just not worth debating for the sake of debating; for the intellectual stimulus debating provides. This is especially true, I think, when one utterly disregards the content of a post but focuses instead on scoring points on details that are (moreor less) inconsequential.

On the other hand, a debate of substance is something I care about very much. An as an old timer I am happy (and even sometimes embarrassed) to be the beneficiary of new info that changes my worldview.

I also try (and routinely fail obviously) to be entirely honest. That's the nature of the individual shadow complex each of us is endowed with.

Catch you out, he will -- tricksy bugger that he/she is. And I can speak with long experience about this personal Golem of ours--- the remnants of egg on my face day in day out. But try I do.

David

[Craig Lamson]

David I must congratulate you that was a very well written post you write with a verve I'm can only dream about but as Kevin pointed out on the other thread the substance of it doesn't go much beyond saying 'the truth is so obvious it's not worth debating'.

I'll reply at length sometime tomorrow.

Obviously a cross post as I hadn't read your post when I posted mine.

Please, save yourself the trouble and don't bother posting a reply to David. You'll only be carved up. It's clear that David has expertise in this area and you have no chance of matching it.

I doubt even your tiny band of devotees will enjoy the spectacle.

Tell him, Craig.

Qiute franky I think Len should post. Davids "deduction" is silly and Lens hit the nail right on the head. Don't need no stinkin proof, we we just deduced it...yea right. Its a shame David likes his Nazi references....

[Guest David Guyatt]

David I must congratulate you that was a very well written post you write with a verve I'm can only dream about but as Kevin pointed out on the other thread the substance of it doesn't go much beyond saying 'the truth is so obvious it's not worth debating'.

I'll reply at length sometime tomorrow.

Obviously a cross post as I hadn't read your post when I posted mine.

Please, save yourself the trouble and don't bother posting a reply to David. You'll only be carved up. It's clear that David has expertise in this area and you have no chance of matching it.

I doubt even your tiny band of devotees will enjoy the spectacle.

Tell him, Craig.

Qiute franky I think Len should post. Davids "deduction" is silly and Lens hit the nail right on the head. Don't need no stinkin proof, we we just deduced it...yea right. Its a shame David likes his Nazi references....

Ah Craig, me old China, do I deduce that you've forgiven me and are now speaking to me again. What a cuddly chum you are.

Kisses,

David

[Len Colby]

David, I think you've got it 'right', these clowns for the oligrarchy 'Borg' are a joke and only should be taken at 'joker' value. If one doesn't stand for all humanity, one stands for nothing. [Nation states and world oligarchy be damned] 'patriotism' be dammed. Uno Mundo or Non Mundno

Christ!* Peter give it a rest, haven't the mods made it abundantly clear they don't want this kind of stuff on the forum?

*I say that sincerely as one Jewish atheist to another (LOL)

Edited August 31, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Len, your arguments are, I think, fascile and growing increasingly absurd --- even to the nth degree, I think.

I could just as easily and (IMHO) far more accurately say the same about your post (which to your credit you seem to be backing away from).

Last night it rained, although I was asleep and didn't see it or hear it. But I woke up and the ground was sogging. I have absolutely no proof that it did rain, but I am able to deduct that it rained because of the aftermath. Either that or a mighty great dog or horse trundled by the house early in the morning. Which of the two is likely do you think? Sure, I could tune into the TV or internet and look at weather reports. If these said it rained than it is fair to conclude that my deduction was logical and reasonable.

False analogy fallacy, the case isn’t as ‘cut and dried’ as you make out. Here my analogy a security guard at an important international event notices a suspicious abandoned backpack and notifies the police who immediately start evacuating the area. The guard’s suspicions were proved right moments afterwards when a bomb inside the bag exploded killing a man and injuring over a hundred people but if it weren’t for him the fatalities would have been much greater. He is proclaimed a hero. But shortly afterwards investigators discover that he was a “wanna be cop who:

1. Told some employees at [one of the event’s] pavilion, "You better take a picture of me now because I'm going to be famous."
   
2. “According to several witnesses owned a backpack “similar to the bomb-pack…Although thorough searches of every place in which [he was] known to reside or store property, investigators have not found such a pack in his possession.
   
3. was known for never taking extended breaks while working at the tower [where the bomb went off], on the night of the bombing at about 10p, for the first time [he] had a back-up security guard relieve him, and was away from the tower for 15-20 minutes.”
   
4. “vigorously resisted an attempt to change his assignment from the tower to another part of the park.”
   
5. “during construction of one of the towers in the park… inexplicably asked whether the tower would stand up to an explosion.”
   
6. “issued a high number of traffic tickets as a zealous campus cop at a small…college.”
   
7. “While working at the college was seen by a coworker a few months earlier with “a drawing consistent with a bomb. He commented to (deleted), "I'm trying to learn about how to take bombs apart." This person made a small drawing for FBI agents, based on what he had seen” and it was similar to bomb that exploded”
   
8. “As a deputy sheriff [a few years earlier] received some bomb training.”
   
9. “appeared nervous in his first television interview on CNN the day after the bombing” to “someone who remembered [him] as cool in a crisis situation”
   
10. “Was spotted by a neighbor “looking very nervous” minutes after an explosion went off next to his house a year or two before the bombing.”
    
11. Fit an FBI “lone bomber profile”
    

Wow the only thing missing was a surveillance tape of him planting the bomb! But inexplicably he was declared no longer to be a suspect and the story died. But as it turns out he had nothing to do with planting the bomb.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9610/28/fbi.affidavit/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/US/9610/28/jewell.suspect/index.html

Deductive reasoning isn't proof. It's deductive. You don't have to be a Sherlock either. No one here is trying to build a case to take to court where absolute proof is required. That is the place for lawyers, not writers or journalists or other interested parties. The latter need only provide beyond reasonable grounds for demonstrating something happened by showing connections etc.

Bit of a strawman I never said such proof was necessary, except for the standards of a tabloid we’ve yet to see “reasonable grounds for demonstrating” there had been insider trading.

None of us are part of the government and therefore do not have access to inside or classified information. This obviously hinders everyone of us to providing absolute proof. That is the purpose of classification. Not just to hide information from competitors and enemies but also from the domestic population.

Thankfully a lot of the info is part of the public record.

Disregarding media reports when it suits your argument, as you are currently doing, is just being intellectually barren and ethically disengenuous. Needless to say, perhaps, but you are quick to post media reports as factual corollaries to your arguments when it suits your purposes.

I’m not so much disputing the facts presented in the SF Chronicle as I am some of the conclusions reached by its anonymous source shortly after the attacks. More recent information shows that those conclusions were based on insufficient evidence and probably were wrong. I do think they got one fact wrong though “investors bought the [uAL] option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each” a 13X increase in the value of UAL options after 9/11? As for the Ruppert and his article you wrote the following

"The thing is Len, is that Ruppert was an asshole. I told him about Krongard because I'd been researching the guy on another matter and then Mike goes and publishes it. Mike was like that - impulsive. After awhile a lot of people who were helping him out with background research (including a very able former banker who is a friend of mine) dropped him."

So you can’t exactly now say that I’m “being intellectually barren and ethically disingenuous” for “disregarding it especially since he didn’t name his sources.

Often you post more links to stories than one can shake a stick at.

That what's known as documenting your claims as mandate by this forums rules.

It's a case of heads you win, tails everyone else loses.

No it’s complying with forum rules. If people think the information in my cited sources is incorrect the are free to say so, hopefully they will be able backup those suspicions with evidence.

This debating technique if familiar to many of us who have seen it used numerous times before and that is why people here increasingly consider you to be a spoiler with a hidden agenda.

I don't know if that is true or not, but you're damned well going out of your way to bolster that impression, I think.

You're better than than David, not worth a reply

In regard to your latter points above, the put options were sufficiently suspicious to trigger investigations by a number of different regulators in a number of different nations. That fact alone should be enough to engage our suspicions that something was amiss because multiple independent (if such a term can be applied to government inquiries) investigations of this sort are not rare. It didn't suprise me one little bit that the information gathered during these investigations was not made public. I would have been astonished if it had, in fact.

So you think the numerous “regulators in a number of different nations” were all controlled by the plotters. If they were why did they so publicly investigate? Imagine a house catches fire in the US and some people including kids are killed this result in insurance payments to the homeowner and next of kin. Numerous federal state and local agencies (FBI, ATF, FD, PD, Child Services etc) and the involved insurance companies could investigate. If they conclude the fire was accidental but don’t disclose many details is that evidence the fire was indeed arson?

On the issue of exercising the put options, it is not incumbent - or necessary- for the option buyer to exercise it thus forcing them/him to purchase the underlying assets at the contracted strike price. Instead, they can simply arrange to have a call option written once the price of the underlying asset has plummeted, due to the foreseen events. The put and the call option cancel each other out and only the profit or loss moves between the contracted parties. The rapid growth of the derivative market has taken precedence over the old "short sale" and "long buy" that used to be used in their place with cash movements being a fraction of what used to be required under the older method. In other words, exercising an option is only one possibility. It depends on the strategy in play at the time. Over emphasis on this issue may well be nothing more than a red herring designed to confuse the public who are not at all knowledgeable about these matters.

Your paragraph above seems like “a red herring designed to confuse the public who are not at all knowledgeable about these matters.” It in no way refutes the evidence I presented that explains the high number of UAL and AMR put options sold in early September or the “failure” to cash in on them by the end of the month (actually the underlined portion partially confirms the latter)

Can you explain why, if the attacks had been planned for years, the plotters would have bought so many options days ahead off time when they could have done so weeks or months earlier to avoid suspicion?

"The put and the call option cancel each other out"

What exactly would be the point then?

This deflection (if that is what it is?) reminds me of a newspaper report in the Daily Torygraph awhile back that sought to downplay the uncomfortable background of the recently deceased Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. It was a masterful exhibition of half truths. The article worked hard to decry that the Prince had been a nazi and denied flatly that at the Prince's wedding to Juliana that the nazi anthem, Deutchland Uber Alles, had been sung by the guests, insisting it had not. What the article did not say, however, was that the other Nazi anthem the Horst Wessel Song had been sung by all present. Meanwhile, the Prince had been a member of the SS -- the newspaper denials to the contrary.

Interesting story but completely irrelevant.

You are therefore correct to say that no one has refuted your arguments. Perhaps that is because there is scant need to.

If that’s the case someone with your expertise youcould have done so with far less effort than it took you to write your post.