--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff > <no_reply@> > > > > wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > haha, I just noticed -- within 4 days, a less than 50% > increase > > > in > > > > AMR > > > > > puts volume was cited as resulting in almost a tripling in > > > comparing > > > > > daily averages (4x vs 11x). Thus, either they are using bad > > > data, OR > > > > > they are using a different interval of days to calculate > daily > > > > > averages for sept 6 and sept 10. Which is totally bogus. > > > > > > > > > > Or simply using THAT day's average. Thats crap as far as > seeing > > > if > > > > > the figures are statistically "abnormal". The daily average > > > should > > > > > be calculated over at least 30 trading days, better, over a > > > year. > > > > > > > > > > The figures were sliced, diced and cherry picked. > > > > > > > > Whatever the problems with the figures in this specific > > > > article, suspicious trading prior to 9/11 was *very* > > > > widely reported in the major news media. The 9/11 > > > > commission even investigated it, concluding there were > > > > "innocuous" explanations, but without saying what they > > > > were. I believe the SEC investigated also, but did not > > > > release a report. > > > > > > > > I'm astonished that so many of you weren't aware that > > > > this was a major concern after the attacks. It isn't > > > > just something the conspiracy theorists dreamed up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I was well aware of it, as I've written. > > > > > > But big deal, Judy. Why did YOU make such a big deal of it in > the > > > context of what we were discussing? > > > > > > Like I said before, the terrorists would have been idiots if > they > > > didn't take advantage of the insider trader knowledge of the > > attacks > > > and speculate accordingly. > > > > > > Hey, do you guys have any idea how much you could have made on > > > Google's approximately 100 point drop in its stock price earlier > > > this year had you bought put options at the right time? > > > > > > A $5,000 investment could have turned into about $8 million in > > about > > > a month. Now, THAT'S the power of put options! > > > > > > > The real question you should be asking is: if it was the > terrorists, > > why wasn't this made clear in subsequent investigations? > > > > The answer should be obvious: either no windfall profits (or > whatever > > you call stock options trading) were actually made, or the > terrorists > > were found NOT to be theones doing it. > > > > If the latter case, my guess would be that several government- > related > > investments were made, probably by various Saudi royals, and it > was > > too big a scandal to let that become public knowledge, even though > > the Saudis cleaned house within a few months with various royal > > cousins suddenly being lost in the desert and so on. > > > > Maybe the dingo ate your baby. >
So you're saying that certain members of the Saudi royals who later disappeared were NOT funding Bin Laden? Or that they wouldn't have been in on the plans? Or that if they were in on the plans, that they wouldn't have taken advantage of their insider knowledge? Or what? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
