Slate does some poor reporting about 9/11
slate takes a little left wing/pro terror report about "misconceptions" about 9/11.

5. The misconception: Terrorists or their supporters profited by speculating on airline stocks before 9/11.

What's wrong with the story: Terrorists may have profiteered, but the evidence is sketchy. As was widely reported after 9/11, the options market for United and American Airlines was unusually busy in the days before 9/11, with an extremely heavy volume of "put options"—bets that the airline shares would fall. By the end of September 2001, both the Chicago Board Options Exchange and the Securities and Exchange Commission had launched investigations into the unusual trading. Since then, they've been silent. Two years later, neither the exchange nor the SEC will comment on its investigation. Neither has announced any conclusion. The SEC has not filed any complaint alleging illegal activity, nor has the Justice Department announced any investigation or prosecution.

This does not mean terrorist wagering didn't occur: It might well have. The absence of any complaint suggests the SEC found nothing illegal, but that's not definite. The SEC and the Chicago board seal the records of their investigations and won't offer any explanation—even if there is an innocent one—for the strange trading. So, unless the SEC decides to file a complaint—unlikely at this late stage—we may never know what they learned about terror trading.


The problem is that the trading was done on the Nikkei exchange...the japanese exchange. I'd heard nothing about the options being put on the american exchanges...only on asian, but chiefly on the japanese exchanges. lame*10.