'Put' Options

I had heard the same thing some months ago, but cannot really add any more information. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that some of the middle east terrorist organizations used the 9/11 tragedy as a way to replenish their fund for terrorist activity.

Whether or not the brokers cooperated in this, is something that I would be very interested in knowing.

If any American names were speculating, I'd like to know that, too.

Looks like this is true.

I just checked this www.snopes.com. This is a very good site for verifying the truth behind these rumors.

"In the month prior to the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, highly unusual trading activity Stocks involving American and United Airlines stock was noted by market analysts who at the time had no idea what to make of it. Wildly unusual discrepancies in the put and call ratio -- 25 to 100 times normal -- were observed in stock options of the two airlines. In one case, Bloomberg's Trade Book electronic trading system identified option volume in UAL (parent of United Airlines) on 16 August 2001 that was 36 times higher than usual. "

You can find the whole story at www.snopes.com. Do a search on "put paid" (I could not figure out how to get a direct link).

I am sure that if they found any of the owners of these contracts (either American or otherwise) they would act appropriately.

It is not unlikely that those that were directly involved in planning of the 9/11 attack might have tried to get some financial profit from this. Why not? Let us remember that prior to becoming a terror leader bin-Laden was a businessman.

Isn't this further proof that we need a far-reaching war on terrorists? Conventional thinking says we hunt down cells, and possibel terrorists, but this is so much more complicated, and goes into so many more areas. As SteissD says, binLaden was a businessman. So much of most wars depends on the money involved, the money to be made. Rather than worrying about who will control Iraq's oil fields, shouldn't we be doing some serious search of how and from where the terrorists are financed? Bombs cost money; transportation and housing cost money, electronic communications cost money.

I guess it comes down to that old saw - "follow the money."

No, we don't need a far-reaching war on terrorists.

Terrorism is a problem that we are going to have to live with. Sure we should do whatl we can to stop it without sacraficing our lifestyle or values as a nation.

The "war on terrorism" is empty public relations phrase that is designed to gain a political advantage. The more the people are kept afraid the less they will think for themselves or question the current people in power.

Sure we suffered a great attack on 9/11. But compare this with the number of people who died from tobacco-related illness, or car crashes in the same year. I am not being asked support a "War on Tobacco".

Come on now, we have already been through a "war on Poverty" and a "war on Drugs". Both of these efforts have had much the same effect.

When does it all end.

Do keep in mind that tobacco use, and to a large extent, automobile use are voluntary activities. Being bombed, gassed, or other wise murdered are not.

You raise other issues here. I comment briefly on this because it is a very poor analogy.

Home made/organized terrorism make the innocent citizens victims
11th september is an ingored terrorism
or approved terrorism or
organiszed terrorism.
11th september had shed some lights to define the word .