not really, snopes is actually pretty much accurate. they aren't 100% but who is?

the people who try to discredit them just cherry-pick political stuff, which is tricky to fact check, and usually get mad about semantics in their articles.

Hahahaha, great joke

so is this the part where i say, please provide evidence of snopes being untrustworthy, and then you link some cherrypicked partisan articles that you don't like, thus proving my point exactly?

They were wrong about Campos missing, because he was...then not...

No he wasn't. He was laying low. Exactly nobody close to him reported him missing or filed a police report about it.

just because a bunch of people on the internet didn't know where he was, doesn't mean he was "missing"

Also tons of MSM articles saying he was missing as well...

What the fuck, I love the MSM now.

To give you just one example, here is their piece from 2005, where they allege there was no insider trading concerning 9/11.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

Only a year later Poteshman published his article which you can read here:

https://911inacademia.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/a-poteshman-journal-of-business-2006-unusual-option-market-activity-and-the-9-11-attacks.pdf

That is one of at least 3 that I know of that deal with insider trading, and that found that it was happening.

Which brings me back to Snopes. Their methodology seems to consist of only regurgitating MSM sources. This makes an insidious loop where they use MSM to 'debunk', and the MSM use Snopes to reinforce the narrative they are pushing. It is just an extension of manufacturing of consent.

If you actually take the time to read both the snopes article, and the article that you linked from Pteshman, they say almost the exact same thing.

I'm actually cracking up right now. This is exactly what I was talking about with people not trusting snopes- you just cherrypicked an article, that you apparently didn't even understand, and then smugly acted like it was wrong because of some random statistical analyses that... agrees with the snopes article.

Snopes:

On 10 September 2001, another uneventful news day, American Airlines’ option volume was 4,516 puts and 748 calls, a ratio of 6:1 on yet another day when by rights these options should have been trading even. No other airline stocks were affected; only United and American were shorted in this fashion.

Poteshman:

I conclude that option market activity does provide evidence that is consistent with the terrorists or their associates having traded ahead of the September 11 attacks.

Chesney and Crameri:

In the airline sector 8 out of 15 of the selected transactions can be traced back to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Companies like American Airlines, United Airlines, Boeing and to a lesser extent Delta Air Lines and KLM seem to have been targets for informed trading activities in the period leading up to the attacks. The number of new put options issued during that period is statistically high and the total gains Gt realized by exercising these options amount to more than $16 million. These findings support the evidence in Poteshman (2006) who also documents unusual activities in the option market before the terrorist attacks. Appendix B discusses in details our detected option informed trades before 9/11.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228207854_Detecting_Informed_Trading_Activities_in_the_Options_Markets

Pteshman

The option market volume ratios considered do not provide evidence of unusual option market trading in the days leading up to September 11.

Snopes;

But it was during the final few trading days (the market closes on weekends) that the most unusual variances in activity occurred. Bloomberg data showed that on 6 September 2001, the Thursday before that black Tuesday, put-option volume in UAL stock was nearly 100 times higher than normal: 2,000 options versus 27 on the previous day.

On 6 and 7 September 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange handled 4,744 put options for United Airlines’ stock, translating into 474,000 shares, compared with just 396 call options, or 39,600 shares. On a day that the put-to-call ratio would normally have been expected to be roughly 1:1 (no negative news stories about United had broken), it was instead 12:1.

See, I can cherry pick too.

See, I can cherry pick too.

That is the only true thing you stated so far.

Here is the full conclusion Poteshman makes:

The option market volume ratios considered do not provide evidence of unusual option market trading in the days leading up to September 11. The volume ratios, however, are constructed out of long and short put volume and long and short call volume; simply buying puts would have been the most straightforward way for someone to have traded in the option market on foreknowledge of the attacks. A measure of abnormal long put volume was also examined and seen to be at abnormally high levels in the days leading up to the attacks. Consequently, the paper concludes that there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks.

And to add a third paper... by Wong, Thompson and Teh that showed this was occuring:

In addition, we conclude that there is evidence of abnormal trading in the September 2001 OTM, ATM and ITM SPX index put options immediately after the 9-11 attacks.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1588523

"evidence of unusual [...] activity" and "evidence of abnormal trading" is not proof of the claim that Snopes declared false.

and you keep conveniently forgetting about this whole thing:

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

Here is Snopes:

In the days just prior to the 11 September 2001, large quantities of stock in United and American Airlines were traded by persons with foreknowledge of the upcoming 9/11 attacks.

Here is Potashman:

I conclude that option market activity does provide evidence that is consistent with the terrorists or their associates having traded ahead of the September 11 attacks.

So we see that the evidence is there, and was independently corroborated, not just in the airline sector, but the banking sector as well. But let us continue on...

The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

Let us be clear on the what they found.

The SEC told the FBI that some of these 29. accounts were 'either hedge funds or proprietary accounts that had been in existence for years. As of September 21,2001, the SEC and/or the relevant securities exchanges were still investigating other of the 29 accounts. At the September 21 meeting, the SEC referred two suspicious accounts to the FBI for investigation

Those 29 accounts were investigated through interviews only.

https://i.imgur.com/R5xrkzU.png

They identified Stratsec, and dismissed it as not related to terrorist activity because it had people connected to the US government.

https://i.imgur.com/eLHic4G.png

They did not investigate foreign accounts, rather they relied on investigations of foreign regulatory agencies.

Concenring commodities and treasuries, the FBI did not even investigate, rather took the preliminary findings of CFTC at face value.

https://i.imgur.com/Dh1UVSK.png

FBI feigns ignorance about hard drives shipped overseas, and provide a stellar argument that, 'everything was turned to powder', a false statement if there was one.

https://i.imgur.com/3IlrPZ8.png

So to summerize, the correct statement to say is that the 9/11 Commission and the FBI claimed they found no links to Al-Quaeda and terrorism. What is not the right claim, is that

The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

Here is the full pdf of the FBI report to the 9.11 commission.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110309232402/http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00269.pdf

So basically you won't accept anything that talks down Snopes because to are too far entrenched in your bullshit tribalistic politics?

actually, it is literally the opposite.

i refuse to reject a source of information merely because they put out facts that disagree with a certain ideology or another. which is why 99% of conservatives/repubs/trumpers reject snopes.

Homie. Look at your other replies. They are giving you specific examples. I was just calling out your cognitive dissonance. Feel free to see where I stand. I couldn't care less. It's right there.

They are giving you specific examples.

one guy gave one example, which he was hilariously incorrect about.

I was just calling out your cognitive dissonance.

You were making wild assumptions about me, which are very incorrect. I am not partisan, I am not liberal, not a democrat, not a republican, not a conservative. It's all just a shell game, dude. Stop playing.

As I said. You are welcome to judge me by my publicly available posting history.

Doesn't change the fact that Snopes is a liberal rag.

liberal rag

stop playing the shell game, brother. you're life will be happier for it.

Okay. You don't have to read it if you want. It would fuck up your opinion. That's your call. No pressure.

lol

Snopes is not accurate. I hope you are joking.

they are more accurate than the vast majority of online media sources i've encountered, but yeah, they aren't 100%

Snopes is great when you want to find out which celebrities had to go to the hospital to get semen pumped from their stomach in the 80s.

Don't trust them about current politics.

So give us some examples of inaccuracies in their articles?

Their 100% because they take one specific aspect of a story reported by some obscure website and prove that wrong and by doing so say the whole thing is wrong. I

They try to debunk shit all the time without having the full story...just like they did with LV Shooting...

I know, I see it all the time:

Head line: LV SHOOTING CONSPIRACY Truth: False Claim: ^{Obscure website claims Paddock was an Alien}

I swear at some point I read that chelsea clinton was on the board.

Snopes has its moments, primarily when it comes to the more technical urban legends; such as "Will a Cell Phone Unlock Keyless Cars?" or historical legends like "Is 'Snowflake' a Nazi Term for the Remains of Cremated Victims?"

Typically, you want to avoid anything they have to say on politics, and stick to the more factual based rumors or legends.

Snopes refuses to cover declassified material like operation Northwoods and operation Paperclip. They are biased when it comes to anything controversial.

See with your own eyes and think with your own mind...