From: "Adam Flinton" 


"Geo."  wrote in message news:3e0ca3ea{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
> news:3e0c2c73{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> > Again not that many people. Sorry but 3K people isn't all that many when
> > stacked up against death rates for car crashes, putting on socks
etc.etc.
> > It's certainly not enough to cause a recession. The shock of it +
various
> > mini effects (inc Enron, WoldCom et al)  may have woken people up to the
> > economic facts of life but you can't blame 9-11 for the massively
inflated
> > share prices & a slump in corporate demand.
>
> Right, but at the same time when dealing with something like a managed
> stock, losing the 10 people who pretty much have been managing it will
> really screw up that stock. If the market doesn't understand why that one
> stock became so screwed up then the effect can spread rather quickly to
> other stocks.
>

Hummm a lot of trading is done via screens. heck in London we had the IRA
blowing the sh*t out of the Baltic exchange etc. My cousin works in exactly
this area of "risk management" for the city banks.

> Adam, let me ask a question. Why WTC? Why not a shuttle launch or Mt
> Rushmore or the sears tower or the any of the more than abundant
> non-economical targets in this country? Why was the white house or the
> pentagon or congress or a nuke plant not the main target? If they wanted
to
> kill people or make the news, why not a football game with 100,000 in
> attendance on national TV?
>

It's symbolic. Symbology is important as it feeds into mass psychology.

> It's because the WTC was an economic target and they want to disable the
> money pump. Now I don't fully understand all the effects of losing it and
> the people in it but there definitely have been some major economic
effects,
> it wasn't just airlines that were affected.
>

Nope they hit em coz they were the symbol of New York/the western economic
dominance not because of their exact function.

Ada,

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4