Let's Face It We Were ALL Duped

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
neutron & pteridine

Please gentlemen, let's keep it real, and let's keep it rational and adult.

What happened at WTC is clearly not described by the sophistry and nonsense that is the NIST report. Your posts above are rather as nonsensical as the NIST report itself.

Once again, all you can say is that you don't believe it. You have no basis for your statement but you claim our posts are "nonsensical." I have shown you photographs of girders on a bridge that were distorted after only 20 minutes of a moderate fire. I have shown that at 1000F, steel loses much of its strength. You have shown nothing.

Let's see some rationality from you, if you have any.

Sir, you and neutron demonstrate your abject credulousness.

No, I cannot "prove" (to you and him) that explosives were used, but the other side of the coin is that you cannot "prove" any element of the NIST explanation. Neither can they.

If you are so credulousness that you believe without question the statements of political creatures with well established reputations for deception, there is nothing I can do to help you, and certainly further communication is a complete waste of time.

Please simmer in your gullibility. I prefer to face the unpleasant truth--we were all deceived 15 years ago, and bad guys are in charge of the government and media. IMO, the cover-up is worse than the crime itself.

a reply to: Salander

If you are so credulousness that you believe without question the statements of political creatures with well established reputations for deception, there is nothing I can do to help you, and certainly further communication is a complete waste of time.

Well said.

It is a waste of time , you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.

a reply to: Salander

What? It's proven! You are so dogmatic!

I am wrong cause you cannot prove anything!

What?

Please provide a coherent and logical debate to.....

The WTC towers steel was insufficiently fire proofed. Fact!

The long lengths of the floor trusses were only supported on the ends! No supports along the tresses's midsections! Fact!

There was no reinforced concrete applied on the outer walls or floor tresses's midsections for support! Fact

The design of the towers did not envision a fire that was instantaneous and spread throughout several floors as caused by the jet fuel. Fact!

The jet impacts severed elevator cables, fire water mains to the sprinklers, other vital services, and changed the way the vertical columns distributed load. Fact!

A floor of a high rise building is only able to carry the weight the floor was designed for and the required safety factors! One floor might be rated for 200 tons, and the floor under it might be only rated for 175 tons. Fact!

Structural steel looses about sixty percent of its ability to resist load around 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. ( around 40 percent of its strength at 600 degrees Fahrenheit). As steel increases in temperature, it becomes increasingly less resistant to load! Fact!


As steel heats up, it expands !Fact!

www.fireengineering.com...

Steel will expand from 0.06 percent to 0.07 percent in length for each 100oF rise in temperature. The expansion rate increases as the temperature rises. Heated to 1,000oF, a steel member will expand 9½ inches over 100 feet of length….

What do you not get? The towers were caught in a fire that spread at a rate faster than the towers were designed for!

The heat caused the floor tresses to try to expand! The outer end of the tresses were connected to steel not as hot, plastic, workable, more sound!

So, the floor tresses with no midsection supports, bowed downward under the strain of thermal expansion and floor load!

But that is not what killed the towers! Not until the bowed floor tresses started to cool, contract, and pull on the vertical columns was the collapse initiationated! As proved by the video in this link! www.metabunk.org...

The initiation of the tower's collapse was almost silent and unobtrusive!

Large sections of vertical columns were left standing for seconds on end after the total collapse of the WTC tower floors.

Stop the little rants and fits. If you want to debate with a structured argument with supporting facts, its welcomed!

If you only can say it's your opinion, than that is an admission you have no argument nor proof inward bowing did not cause the collapse of the towers!

"What about this is", applied to every little thing you don't comprehen in not an argument. Tell how inward bowing to collapse is false!

How many times have you had the facts presented, and you just say it's your opinion?

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
neutron & pteridine

Please gentlemen, let's keep it real, and let's keep it rational and adult.

What happened at WTC is clearly not described by the sophistry and nonsense that is the NIST report. Your posts above are rather as nonsensical as the NIST report itself.

Once again, all you can say is that you don't believe it. You have no basis for your statement but you claim our posts are "nonsensical." I have shown you photographs of girders on a bridge that were distorted after only 20 minutes of a moderate fire. I have shown that at 1000F, steel loses much of its strength. You have shown nothing.

Let's see some rationality from you, if you have any.

Sir, you and neutron demonstrate your abject credulousness.

No, I cannot "prove" (to you and him) that explosives were used, but the other side of the coin is that you cannot "prove" any element of the NIST explanation. Neither can they.

If you are so credulousness that you believe without question the statements of political creatures with well established reputations for deception, there is nothing I can do to help you, and certainly further communication is a complete waste of time.

Please simmer in your gullibility. I prefer to face the unpleasant truth--we were all deceived 15 years ago, and bad guys are in charge of the government and media. IMO, the cover-up is worse than the crime itself.

You are not alone. No one can prove demolitions.

Early on, I looked at the purported "evidence" for demolitions and concluded that there was none other than hearsay. The paint-on thermite proposal was a feeble attempt with a ridiculous premise. To top it off, Jones' paper was groundless and poorly written, at that.
No physical or video evidence was presented that showed explosives. I have significant experience with energetic materials and saw nothing that would indicate their use.
You may believe that we were all deceived but you should consider that the deception may not be what brought the towers down but rather peripheral events before and after the collapse.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

A trading company bought into an airlines? Again, who and when was capital freed up to buy the stock. What fund was it purchased for. Was it in violation of the managed fund's written goals. When was the stock sold off for a profit?

You have evidence that a stock company bought stock?

You can act like you 'know what your talking about', but the specific questions you're asking, and how unrelated they are, is enough proof, you don't know what the **** you're talking about. Can you at least learn what a put option is before replying again?

Answers to dumb questions:
No specific company needed to invest, individuals can make put options. When was capital freed? You don't need to free capital to buy a stock. What fund was it purchased for? What? How about you stick to the fking idea it's a PUT OPTION. GOOGLE: "WHAT IS A PUT OPTION". The funds written goals? Most put options are done on computer, and are only part of the stocks history for such a short time that physically writing any of the information down would be POINTLESS. When was the stock sold for profit? Well LUCKILY, ITS A PUT OPTION, SO IT AUTOMATICALLY SELLS ITSELF WHEN IT MAKES PROFIT YOU DECIDED PRIOR. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF A PUT OPTION.

A put option is an option contract giving the owner the right, but not the obligation, to sell a specified amount of an underlying security at a specified price within a specified time. This is the opposite of a call option, which gives the holder the right to buy shares.
www.investopedia.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

The put options broke records for those companies those days, highest market volume doesn't relate to the fact records were broken.

Your source couldn't be more bias. Bias sources are honestly even more proof insider trading potentially went down, as the standard excuse for chaining put options actually makes sense, and still isn't mentioned. In otherwords, the person that wrote that has no idea how the stock market even works, but thinks they knew why AA had massive puts. Also, his excuse of it selling soon makes sense MAYBE for AA, but explain the other airlines, and the companies inside the buildings THAT ALSO HAD RECORD BREAKING PUT OPTIONS?

The truth is one put sell, has the 'potential' to trigger others. So in an event that puts are successful, it will lead to more successful puts. This is the only logical distinction to make when facing the issue. With that in mind, the record breaking amount of puts made was still statistically significant verses puts triggered for prior knowledge of the attacks.

Only blind people think puts isn't a good place to start when looking for insider trading. This applies to stocks that go up more often than down, but the option strategy remains the same. Knowing the future is useful with the stock market, but options is directly the tool you would use for efficiency of it.

Ps. Did you snip his answer to why there were unclaimed puts? Or is whatever he said not related after "why"? The conclusion from this source is dismal and doesn't look at the bigger picture. He attempts to solely disproved AA in an effort to make sense of the puts on every company in that building and BARELY mentions United ("United Airlines stocks were falling in price, too."). This freaking 2 pages long over a super narrow perspective to prove a broader concept? WTF?

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON


quote]originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON


Answers to dumb questions:
No specific company needed to invest, individuals can make put options.When was capital freed? You don't need to free capital to buy a stock.

Can you make up your mind, you are the one who invoked merrill lynch by name!

Now you are talking about individuals?

Are you talking about buying on margin. (Buying stock on credit)

I am pretty sure Merrill Lynck has its own investment accounts. It also has money people gave to Merrill Lynck through funds (IRAs, etc...) who's goals, levels of risk, and investing strategies are documented and outlined.

Bottom line, the money had to be cash, from an account, transferred from an account with a person given / or has permission to conduct the money transfer, the stock bought by a person given / or has the authority, the money is transferred, the stock is bought, a receit and ownership of the stock documented, the bought stock price is noted for the sake of capital gains taxes.

If the transaction is by a program, The stock is still paid for in cash from an account with freed up funds. Somebody still has the authority and accountability of setting the parameters of when to buy and sale stock. That person is still accountable to the goals of the company, mutual fund, etc....? Still accountable to the legal documentation of the stock purchase.


For individuals, they still need freed up cash! The the money transferres and other required documentation.

I can see individuals with direct connections with terrorist maybe? But why take a chance on the airline going under? If it is proven there is a criminal connection with the terrorists, the stocks would be confiscated. ( that is a better conspiracy. Government leaked info so investors would consult terrorists so government could make millions confiscating millions in illegal stocks profits)

Back to Merrill Lynck, again you named them by name.

Did Merrill Lynck have direct contact with the terrorists? How did they get ahold of them for what purpose? Again, what if the airline actually folded? How much profit was made again vs how much Merrill Lynck makes annually to justify coordinating of criminal activity? And when was the stock sold?

originally posted by: neutronflux

Are you talking about buying on margin. (Buying stock on credit)

You simply don't understand enough about the financial system to understand the point I'm making.

This question clears my name blatantly at this point, so I'm no longer worried about expressing it to you.

Have you ever seen in Cartoons of Business Men, when they talk about "stock options"?

I'm more or less talking about that. It gives evidence of insider trading. I don't wish to continue the conversation with all your derails in detail, that explicitly question MY understanding. I've used put options before this conversation. I've used them before 9/11. I can't even seem to explain to you what they are, so I have no use for my point in that case.

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Can you please again explain how companies/ individuals buy stocks without freed up cash.

Trying to suggest I don't know anything when you are the one with concept errors is not a very good strategy?

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

And you are the one who first named Merrill Lynck, and other companies.

Now you want to talk about individuals?

Come back when you know what argument you want to put forth.

a reply to: neutronflux

No, you have literacy issues. At no point did I suggest it was primarily companies, and not individuals. I believe I even suggest it's many individuals when mentioning the statistical nature of people who likely were involved verses not. Because it's many individuals using options, this is why it's easier to assume insider trading occurred.

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Then there is just the INDISPUTABLE FACT YOU CAN LOOK AT THE CBOE NUMBERS OF PUTS, SO WHY WOULD I, SOMEONE WHO HAS LOOKED AT THAT, MAKE SUCH A SILLY ARGUMENT?

Meanwhile you are trying to interpret 'my argument' as if it's fiction, when all this information is available to you also. You think 1 man making 95 puts is impressive? Are you kidding? Between all the companies together its many THOUSANDS of puts made. That's why specifically your source, and others like it don't look at the big picture of COMPANIES IN THE BUILDING + PLANES.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Can you please again explain how companies/ individuals buy stocks without freed up cash.

Trying to suggest I don't know anything when you are the one with concept errors is not a very good strategy?

Can you explain why you need to free up capital if you already have freed up capital? You're just erroneously adding ideas that don't matter. There's also an enormous fallacy in this that you would need 'large amounts of money' to profit from insider trading. On the level of funds terrorists operate, 100k is nothing. But it's enough to make several millions in a plan like this.

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
a reply to: neutronflux

Wow okay. I'll make this as simple as possible. Guess what the Red Flag is:
1. Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America had massive bets to fail on 9/11 on the stock market, prior to crashes. So did many other companies. Record breaking in fact. Airlines too.

You stated the sentence as the companies had massive bets.

Did the companies have massive bets? You mean massive bets against the companies?

Did individuals have massive bets?

Who had the massive bets, define massive?

Who had the amount of cash for the massive bets?

The banks would have a record of the money transfers.

The banks log and notify the government anytime an individual moves more than 10,000 dollars cash.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
a reply to: neutronflux

Wow okay. I'll make this as simple as possible. Guess what the Red Flag is:
1. Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America had massive bets to fail on 9/11 on the stock market, prior to crashes. So did many other companies. Record breaking in fact. Airlines too.

You stated the sentence as the companies had massive bets.

Literacy issues. You read it as companies purchased stock. It's to be understood individuals made put options against said companies.


Massive is the fact said put options broke records for companies inside the WTC. When you look at the data, the records broke daily limits by miles. More than double. More than Triple. Etc.

a reply to: neutronflux

From: Bank Secrecy Act Compliance - The $10, 000 Rule

blog.fraudfighter.com...

Title:
Reportable Transactions

A reportable transaction relates to the underlying transaction that results in the transfer of cash. These include but are not limited to:

The sale of goods, services, real estate or intangible property (stocks, bonds etc)
Rental of goods, real property and personal property
Cash exchanged for other cash (I'll define cash in a minute)
When creating or maintaining a trust or escrow account (i.e. putting $10k in to a living trust for your kids)
A loan repayment
Conversion of cash to a negotiable instrument (i.e. a check or a bond)
These examples also apply to what are called related transactions. Related transactions are those transactions that occur between the same buyer and seller (or agents thereof) that occur within a 24 hour period or that the parties know or should have reason to know that the transactions are related (if the transactions occur more than 24 hours apart).

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Are you talking about betting against the stock markets by buying gold?

What limits are you talking about?

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Why the long drawn out narrative?

You just could have said.....

Someone with ties with the terrorists may have put bids on United Airline stock one or two days before 9/11. The bid was set to buy United Airlines stock at a ridiculous low stock price. 9/11 caused United Airlines stock to plummet to the unrealistic buy bid price. When the stock market recovered, the United Airlines stock was sold for a windfall profit.

The government investigation was incompetent at discovering the identity of the individuals.

A note, the term betting to fail is not correct. If United Airlines collapsed, all stock would end up worthless.

It was a ploy to buy low and sale high when the market righted itself.

I bought GM stock during the downturn, before the government takeover of GM. It was a gamble to buy GM stock and I struck out.

Ford was the better bet.

a reply to: pteridine

You're right, no one can "disprove" demolition either.

Earlier on I looked into the OS narratives and concluded, that most of it was hearsay, predetermined conclusion from the proven pseudoscience NIST Report, a stonewalled 911 Commission investigation, which proved a criminal connection between the Bush administration, Pentagon, and the FAA.

What the world witnessed on 911, live coverage from the major networks filming the destruction of the WTC does not, and can not stand up to the physics of the bought and paid for science of NIST.

There may not be any proof of remains of blasting caps, bombs, residu, wiring, circuit boards, because the crime scene was controlled and swiftly removed to landfills and guarded.

Arguments, and "opinions" that millions of tons of the WTC debris was sifted with screens looking for remaining demolition pieces is false information.

As the same goes that thousands of DNA was discovered in the millions of tons of the WTC debris, another piece of false information.

The fact is, the landfills were used to separate the steel and other debris that would be sold for recycling.

Another fact is, the government does not have a super duper sniffing DNA machine that can find human DNA in millions of tons of debris.

Some on ATS claim office fires brought down the WTC, yet after 15 years, I have not read a single Peer Reviewed Report that support such a hypothesis.

Either way, no one is winning in the 911 debate or what is called debating.

"Opinions" in the 911 threads without credibal sources are now being accepted as facts, and the rule of real debate has been tossed out the window.

It's ok to disagree, and move on.

Another fact is, the Truth Movement no longer exist and was destroyed many years ago, yet I see it's still the main topic and used to ridicule anyone who doesnt support the os narratives.

Another fact, "every single scientist" that has investigated, written technol papers, against the NIST and government claims about the demise of the WTC has been under character assassination, ridiculed, accused of mass fraud with no credible evidence, and their work has never been debunked, except for Judy woods space beams hypothesis, and members on ATS assume this is called debunking.

I do not support the os narratives of 911 for many reasons, and one of those reasons is the most of the 911 information was given to us through fake, properganda, mainstream News.

a reply to: Informer1958

Some on ATS claim office fires brought down the WTC, yet after 15 years, I have not read a single Peer Reviewed Report that support such a hypothesis.

In fact, there are some very good photos and video that show these enormous fire balls that could only be the fuel load on the aircraft and they exploded external to the buildings.

I will repeat that, the fuel exploded and burnt in huge fireballs outside of the buildings.

The NIST report is just so much garbage.

P