From: "Geo." 

"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.

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 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.

Geo.

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