they keep crapping in bowls and people like neophyte want bigger spoons. if the "insider trading" had led back to "bin laden" that would have been all over the media.. and rightfully so. so where did it lead to??? try ex-cia, buzzy krongard's firm... . trust me they know exactly where that money trail led to..... try and get the records from bloomberg for that day. good luck.
to square against THAT government and win the case would save them 4 billion. convincing. i mean you can hardly dismiss each argument by taking the conspiracy to a further level. now it is not only the guys who did the action plus the government, but private companies like insurers as well. at some time this loses all credibility unless you suffer from a very deeply rooted paranoia in the first place.
omfg, u just dont understand, i never implied insurance companies were involved, quite the opposite. just that the fact that none of them took a a serious look at the consequences for their biz of buildings falling apart that easly, and that's because they all probably think it wont happen ever again.
It's funny that you are FINALLY using your noggin a little bit, and not swallowing all the garbage from the CTers. Glad to see that you're finally wiseing up. Good, so keep looking for the truth. If you are indeed openminded, you'll see that the CT thing has no end to it - like Man said above, one coverup leads to another, and then another, and then another, until it gets so complex that it loses all credibility, unless your opinion is rooted in deep seated paranoia.....
at least we dont hang on to pancake theories that everyone has embarrassingly backed away from. have you finally found a replacement theory? or shall we order a new stack of flap jacks for you?
use the search button..... i rest my case. edit... here you go: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1302460&highlight=the+onion#post1302460
hm. if they "probably think it won't happen ever again" it is equivalent to them claiming the official story is not true. because the only way to hold up such thinking is that buildings of that kind cannot be brought down by cirumstances that stem from fire alone plus some other circumstances (bulding 7). i guess these people's business is exactly to take "a serious look" at whether their compensation for taking over risk is sufficient. my thinking: if they believe the official story, they must raise their rates. or they alreday knew the structural weakness of the buildings anyway inadvance. btw dpt will argue that the two towers were unique - and he is probably right.