NO JOKE: Goldman Sachs shorted Gulf of Mexico

What has been labeled as a Hoax just might have some truth to it after all.

I submit the following information for your thoughts and observations.

To me, it's enough to make one think twice about the original story and that
just perhaps the rabbit hole does indeed go rather deep.
The site doesn't seem to be a 'conspiracy" type of site but I have yet to
examine it at any length as yet.

It turns out that Goldman Sachs really did place shorts on TransOcean stock days before the explosions rocked the rig in the Gulf of Mexico sending stocks plunging while GS profits soared -- benefitting once again from a huge disaster, having done the same with airline stocks prior to 911 then again with the housing bubble.

Dr. Ott had me and Paul Noel on his two-hour radio show yesterday talking about the viral article we posted, "Mother of All Gushers Could Kill Earth's Oceans". In response to the alleged Goldman Sach's shorting story, Paul, who is an expert on the Gulf Oil subject, provided the following intelligence: There is a reason they could have known the rig was going to fail up to two weeks ahead of its failure. The nature of these wells is that they leave the drill mud in the well and compress using very heavy drill mud to keep the well from blowing up unlimited. The well would begin to bump (similar to boiling a big bubble) and the acoustic signals would tell the rig was in trouble that far ahead. Goldman Sacks could just have had inside info. They also know the scale of things. This is the best explanation. It could be otherwise.

Link:
pesn.com...

I posted this in my Halliburton thread. I really want to know the answer to this, because i have no idea. Halliburton bought Boots & Coots for $240 million. Boots and Coots stops oil fires and are helping to clean up this mess. What does the following mean?

Shares of Boots & Coots (AMEX:WEL) are trading up 1% to $2.96 today on above average volume. Approximately 1.4 million shares have traded hands today vs. average 30-day volume of 598,000 shares.

Does that mean in one day 1.4 million shares were bought, compared to 598,000 that were bought in the previous 30 days?!?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please someone answer my question.

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012

Does that mean in one day 1.4 million shares were bought, compared to 598,000 that were bought in the previous 30 days?!?

It means 1.4 million shares changed hands..

all that means is that 1.4 million shares were bought/sold during the trading day.

www.investopedia.com...

Scorpion Offshore Ltd. acknowledges the announcement by Seadrill Limited on 12 April 2010 that Seadrill has acquired additional shares in Scorpion at a price of NOK 36.00 per share. With the acquisition of these shares Seadrill stated that it owns 40.1% of Scorpion's issued and outstanding shares.

By increasing its share ownership above 40% of Scorpion, Seadrill is obligated to make a mandatory cash offer for the remaining Scorpion shares or reduce its holding below the 40% threshold within four weeks from 12 April 2010.

www.oilvoice.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"obligated to make a mandatory cash offer for the remaining Scorpion shares or reduce its holding below the 40% threshold within four weeks from 12 April 2010."

What do you make of this? Why the date setting?

reply to post by Zaydie


Those people at Goldman sure are good.

I think I am going to go to them to invest my money. They could make money betting on when a particular cow is going to pass gas.

This is just another liberal hit piece with absolutely no proof to back it up.

The writer of this, and another, article claims that a mysterious Dr Ott has "two confirmed sources" proving that the Huffington Post comedy piece is actually true.

Dr. Ott has subsequently confirmed from two sources that Goldman Sachs was indeed in on the shorts being placed on TransOcean stock. And he has confirmed that the comedian was aware of that as well.

I could just as easily "confirm from two sources" that four of six naked, pimply kneed sextuplets just ran through my living room, without providing any evidence whatsoever.

The rest of the article is just a bunch of speculation and hype.

Later in the article , the writer, Allan Sterling, also makes his agenda perfectly clear.

In our interview with Dr. Ott yesterday, both Paul and myself pointed to the magnitude of this disaster as hopefully a death knell to the oil industry, spurring people to finally provide the support needed to get the myriad of free/renewable energy technologies that have been languishing into the marketplace.

note: I grabbed this from another similar thread that was closed yesterday.
Please stop posting this crap without any proof.

Originally posted by Kaytagg

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012

Does that mean in one day 1.4 million shares were bought, compared to 598,000 that were bought in the previous 30 days?!?

It means 1.4 million shares changed hands..

all that means is that 1.4 million shares were bought/sold during the trading day.

www.investopedia.com...

OK thank you. So does that mean that in one day 1.4 million were bought/sold compared to 600,000 in the previous months span?

I don't know much about stocks obviously, but doesn't that seem a bit strange?

Approximately 1.4 million shares have traded hands today vs. average 30-day volume of 598,000 shares.

1.4 million compared to the average volume over 30 days.

If the name Dr. Ott, True Ott rings a bell it's because he is a frequent speaker on vaccination issues. What makes him an expert on oil spills is beyond my reckoning.

Here's some more on this.

disclose.tv...

"One oil rig goes down and we're going to be rolling in dough," Mr. Tourre wrote in one email.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Pretty indicative of a planned attack. # maniacs.