Bush did 9/11

[jupiviv]

University of Chicago finance professor George Constantinides said that the option market trading was “so striking that it’s hard to attribute it to chance. So something is definitely going on” (Roeder 2001). Other well-known academic experts such as Columbia University law professor John Coffee and Duke University law professor James Cox likewise suspected that some investors traded in the option market on foreknowledge of the attacks (Mathewson and Nol 2001). In addition, sophisticated option market participants such as Jon Najarian, founder of option specialist Mercury Trading, also concluded from the trading that somebody knew ahead of time that the attacks would occur (Atkinson and Fluendy 2001).

https://web.archive.org/web/20080528105 ... an2006.pdf

dont @ me

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Unusual trading is also something that... just happens sometimes? Anyone has a graph on the variance of the distribution over decades?

Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

- Source Final 9/11 Commission Report

[jupiviv]

Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.

LOL!

The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

ROFLMAO!

But seriously, it's almost a certainty that some Saudis with Al-Qaeeda connections or affiliation would've cashed in through proxies, etc. Obviously I don't think the Bush family or any other high US official "did it" qua doing it but they likely had stronger premonitions about it than would like to admit, and didn't act on them. What is undeniable is that the attacks gave them as decent a casus belli as they were ever likely to receive. They were Jebus' way of telling Bush voters that America needed to start spreading his grace in earnest once again. All those dead neo-marxist alt-billionaire jews were the icing on the post-feminist islamo-modernist cake.

Insider trading isn't something that takes the "sophistication" only NY bankers can muster. You just need the proper access and dispensations. Ditto for assassinating high-security prisoners. No Byzantine conspiracies required to explain such bland, depressing phenomena.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So for some reason, a kind of childish nativity forces you, like so many over-excited conspiracy junkies, to refer to authorities like a handful of "well-known academics" in a rather large field of experts to bash the conclusions of the final 9/11 Commission Report based on documented and overseeing efforts of the SEC and FBI, combined with many experts who reached different and coherent conclusions.

Now I'm not saying who is correct but this is more about a limitation of your own logical argument. You could start with supplying a graph on the variance of the distribution of unusual trading over the decades. Don't let me start looking for one, as I don't make the claims here.

[jupiviv]

You could start with supplying a graph on the variance of the distribution of unusual trading over the decades.

Occurs in different contexts hence not useful to compare correlation with insider trading between different instances over decades.