Futures is a very complex branch of economics which I am not even going to claim to understand fully. The bottom line is explained thusly:
"Trading skyrocketed in options that bet on a drop in UAL Corp. and AMR Corp. stock in the days before terrorists crashed hijacked United and American airlines jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the 110-story 2 World Trade Center, and Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the destroyed twin towers, also experienced pre- attack trading of 12 times to more than 25 times the usual volume in so-called put options that profit when stock prices fall, according to Bloomberg data."
in other words, people bought a ton of options that would give them money if the stock in those companies fell. Being blown up tends to make your stock fall, so those folks that did that trading made a ton of money. The CIA monitors the futures to try to get clues about possible attacks. That's why people think it's funky that these attacks were seemingly just totally out of left field for the CIA.
I see your point about the planes in the sky. I think, from reading Richard Clarke's book, that he and his co-workers had tried to work out a plan in case such an attack occurred (there had been talk that Al Qaeda would be capable of using planes as missiles previous to 9/11). The other controversey is whether or not the Air Force was asked to stand down...hard to get at the truth there, which is why I want more investigation just to figure out what really happened, whether it makes the administration look good or bad. My understanding is that the Air Force is instructed to shoot down a hijacked plane when necessary, so there is some question as to how Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon and Flight 93 that crashed in PA were not targeted, since they were flying around after the Tower attacks. And of course, there are people who think that both planes WERE shot down by the Air Force. Again...hard to know the truth, and that's the shame.
There were many many members of the Bin Laden family living in the US. In fact, I believe I read somewhere that one of Osama's distant relatives had done business in the oil industry with the George Bushes at some point. Planes were sent all around the country to pick up all of those family members and get them out of the country.
Whether we knew who planned and acted out the attack is a bone of contention. If you ask many non-partisan members who worked with the administration in 2001, they would tell you that they had been warning everyone about Al Qaeda for years. So, that's another grey area.
You are right that entire countries should not be held accountable. The problem there is with consistency. Saudia Arabia has many omams who preach vehemently against the US, just as omams in Iran and Iraq do. However, we are fighting in Iraq and are smoking cigars with the leaders of Saudi Arabia. In some cases, a consistent approach to diplomacy would probably erase a lot of the uneasiness. And yes, Afghanistan was bombed after 9/11, and we went to war with Iraq after 9/11. Those countries were held accountable and had little to nothing to do wtih the attacks. So again, that is why some people are frustrated in trying to figure all of this out.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Well...
Date: 2006-03-26 03:34 am (UTC)"Trading skyrocketed in options that bet on a drop in UAL Corp. and AMR Corp. stock in the days before terrorists crashed hijacked United and American airlines jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the 110-story 2 World Trade Center, and Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the destroyed twin towers, also experienced pre- attack trading of 12 times to more than 25 times the usual volume in so-called put options that profit when stock prices fall, according to Bloomberg data."
in other words, people bought a ton of options that would give them money if the stock in those companies fell. Being blown up tends to make your stock fall, so those folks that did that trading made a ton of money. The CIA monitors the futures to try to get clues about possible attacks. That's why people think it's funky that these attacks were seemingly just totally out of left field for the CIA.
I see your point about the planes in the sky. I think, from reading Richard Clarke's book, that he and his co-workers had tried to work out a plan in case such an attack occurred (there had been talk that Al Qaeda would be capable of using planes as missiles previous to 9/11). The other controversey is whether or not the Air Force was asked to stand down...hard to get at the truth there, which is why I want more investigation just to figure out what really happened, whether it makes the administration look good or bad. My understanding is that the Air Force is instructed to shoot down a hijacked plane when necessary, so there is some question as to how Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon and Flight 93 that crashed in PA were not targeted, since they were flying around after the Tower attacks. And of course, there are people who think that both planes WERE shot down by the Air Force. Again...hard to know the truth, and that's the shame.
There were many many members of the Bin Laden family living in the US. In fact, I believe I read somewhere that one of Osama's distant relatives had done business in the oil industry with the George Bushes at some point. Planes were sent all around the country to pick up all of those family members and get them out of the country.
Whether we knew who planned and acted out the attack is a bone of contention. If you ask many non-partisan members who worked with the administration in 2001, they would tell you that they had been warning everyone about Al Qaeda for years. So, that's another grey area.
You are right that entire countries should not be held accountable. The problem there is with consistency. Saudia Arabia has many omams who preach vehemently against the US, just as omams in Iran and Iraq do. However, we are fighting in Iraq and are smoking cigars with the leaders of Saudi Arabia. In some cases, a consistent approach to diplomacy would probably erase a lot of the uneasiness. And yes, Afghanistan was bombed after 9/11, and we went to war with Iraq after 9/11. Those countries were held accountable and had little to nothing to do wtih the attacks. So again, that is why some people are frustrated in trying to figure all of this out.
Make sense?