9 Years Later, Where's The Proof?

[505]

You're simply suspicious and either are unwilling or unable to state why. Meanwhile you chastise those who are not as paranoid as you.

Exactly. I don't get it... if you are suspicious about something, usually there is a reason for it. If you can't identify WHAT it is that makes you suspicious, then WHY are you even suspicious in the first place? DOL claims that "actually many were not sucked into it for such a reason", and while that may be true, it is somewhat dishonest because the VAST majority of truthers all spout the same garbage about controlled demo, no plane at the pentagon, etc. So far nobody here has been able to argue against my points raised in posts #1 and #17, and I find that very telling.

 

[Demon of Light]

Except we're not talking about murder here. We're talking about 9/11.

It was an example. :doh The only point is to illustrate how absurd it is to suggest that if I do not know exactly who did it then I cannot know something was done.

You're simply suspicious and either are unwilling or unable to state why. Meanwhile you chastise those who are not as paranoid as you.

I have stated why several times here and in other threads. The issue here is you seem to think I need to have a list of names in order to legitimately postulate a conspiracy. If someone could prove the shot that killed Kennedy did not come from Oswald's gun you would be saying that he or she could not call it a conspiracy until that person showed who fired the shot, for whom the shooter was working, and all other people involved.

When asked for evidence to support your suspicions, you complain that you're being asked to "know names". Gee sorry to ask you for specifics.

You didn't start by asking for evidence. You asked for names and basically said if I could not give names then it meant none of my claims are legitimate. Essentially you are demanding that I prove who did it before I can say that something was done. In other words, it is like requiring someone to know who the killer is before it can be called murder.

Exactly. I don't get it... if you are suspicious about something, usually there is a reason for it. If you can't identify WHAT it is that makes you suspicious, then WHY are you even suspicious in the first place? DOL claims that "actually many were not sucked into it for such a reason", and while that may be true, it is somewhat dishonest because the VAST majority of truthers all spout the same garbage about controlled demo, no plane at the pentagon, etc. So far nobody here has been able to argue against my points raised in posts #1 and #17, and I find that very telling.

If you look at my posts you see I only ever noted that government investigation could not actually disprove the use of thermite. Nowhere have I said it was a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon or any of the other Loose Change nonsense. Hence, why I am not arguing your points about the attacks themselves, because I don't actually disagree.

 

[usda select]

Exactly. I don't get it... if you are suspicious about something, usually there is a reason for it. If you can't identify WHAT it is that makes you suspicious, then WHY are you even suspicious in the first place? DOL claims that "actually many were not sucked into it for such a reason", and while that may be true, it is somewhat dishonest because the VAST majority of truthers all spout the same garbage about controlled demo, no plane at the pentagon, etc. So far nobody here has been able to argue against my points raised in posts #1 and #17, and I find that very telling.

I mean...it is exactly like the seven year old who is afraid of the boogeyman in the closet. You open the closet, show him or her that nothing is going to hurt them and they end up spending the entire night scared to death of the boogeyman in the closet.

 

[BmanMcfly]

everyone who thinks that this happened intentionally..... yall are idiots.......

Oh... wow... such an eloquent army... I'm convinced.

Thanks for the laugh at least.

Reality check creative ... put options are NOT rare !!!

Sept. 6th ... 2,075 put options were made on United Airlines

Sept. 10th ... 2,282 put options were made on American Airlines

" ... The market was in bad shape in the summer and early fall, and you know there were a lot of people who believed that there would be a sell-off in the market long before Sept. 11. For instance, American Airlines was at $40 in May and fell to $29 on Sept. 10; United was at $37 in May and fell to $31 on Sept. 10. These stocks were falling anyway, and it would have been a good time to short them"
Adam Hamilton of Zeal LLC

American Airlines put option records pre 9/11:

Jan. 8th had 1,315 puts
April 16th ... 1,019 puts
June 15th ... 1,144 puts
June 19th ... 2,951 puts

And for United Airlines:

March 13th ... 8,072
April 6th ... 8,212
July 20th ... 2,995
Aug. 8th ... 1,678 puts

In other words creative ... business as usual !!!

Now, a touch MORE reality. There was a single individual acting on behalf of "an investment strategy" accounted for 80 or 90+ % of the volume of the put options on the two airlines was associated with a single individual, with "no conceivable ties to al-quaida".

It doesn't end there though, this person also put options on the investment firm handling the WTC complex, also investing in Raytheon (a company that saw a surge in stock price), all on the same days prior to the attacks. So, this persons admitted portfolio was to speculate SPECIFICALLY for a 9-11 attack.

But as you said :

More reality creative ... no-one "profited" ... the stocks were NEVER taken up, therefore no actual cash was made.

So, this investor still has some 20 or million in profits sitting in paper stocks which cannot be touched as the FBI's conditions for investigation was "profiteers"... since this person has never claimed the cash only serves to further incriminate. Think about it, if you, as a good hearted individual made an investment move that you thought was prudent but wound up 'accidentally' predicting a massive terrorist attack, wouldn't you want to immediately clear your name?? At least get your money back from the stock, minus any profits?? I know it was 10's of millions of dollars we're talking about, so you can also conclude that the people involved have LOTS of money... which is specifically the classification of an individual that COULD provide financial assistance to the terrorists responsible, if that were to be the case...

And once again, nobody on the troof side can argue the actual topic of the thread. But but, the PUT OPTIONS.

So then, is it safe to say that we are all on the same page regarding the towers? If not, let me demonstrate how LOGIC works. Thermite does not cut beams. Period. There were ZERO explosions recorded during the collapses. Thermite is ineffective and explosions were not present. The towers were not brought down with controlled demolition.

See how that works truth camp?

With that out of the way, let's move on to part 2.

Ok, this is for the whole of the first post as well...

At this point, I think that Jones got SOMETHING wrong in his investigation, by claiming that it was 'thermitic' he pushed himself into a hole that he couldn't get out of without showing himself.... That said, he did find a highly reactive nano-material... in the proving that such materials ACTUALLY existed at the time, I found a wide variety of 'nano-sol gel incendiaries' that each had their own reaction characteristics.

Also, in the main floor lobby, Dr's having examined the bodies had determined that many people in the lobbies, at or around the times the planes hit the building were killed by an explosive.... I'll look for the sources again before I tread further on this...

So, the plane hits the towers, there's some immediate structural damage, the debris and explosion had caused a high rate of damage that was concentrated in the zone where they hit, and in either case only directly impacted a portion of the buildings structure. The flames burned and weakened the steel where the fireproofing had been removed (the area surrounding the actual plane strike), then, the flames were to spread to an area where fireproofing work had been performed by turner construction consisting of the elevator lobby area (I'll show the requisition form again later). So, since the flame had been burning for some time, 40-45 minutes weakening the quarter section which would add further stress to the other side when the effects of the incendiary acted like when you stand on a pop can all it takes is someone flicking it and the integrity fails completely.

Any explosive sounds after the failure is legitimized as the building began it's 3 story 60% of free-fall plunge through the remainder of the structure... why wouldn't there have been any signs of a collision as the failed structure collided with the undamaged lower floor?? I mean, If the top floor lands on the bottom floor, there would be a fraction of a second collision that would take downward energy from the fall untill the lower floor failed beneath it... but it was completely smooth accelleration.

Any comparison you would give showing a controlled demolition is smooth neglects the fact that those buildings are RIGGED to come down... whereas the towers were supposedly not.

Finally, the 'squibbs' concept as being 'air pressure buildup' is completely nonsensical when you actually examine that theory from the video evidence. Namely that there's no way that you would have pressure buildup and blow out a window on the 30th floor a fraction of a second BEFORE one shooting out on the 40th floor when the collapse wave was at the 60th floor (the numbers being arbitrarily chosen, but the effect undeniable).

The eyewitnesses of everything else don't count because many of them counter the official story, so I won't bring that up again.

Building 7.

Once again, let's use a little logic. If building 7 was brought down with controlled demolition, it is safe to say that it was rigged in advance. It is ridiculous to suggest that a crew went in and rigged the building after the towers fell. [/quote]

Ya, there's no way that actually happened.

So, if they pre-rigged it, what would have happened if it WASN'T hit by debris from the towers? It doesn't get hit, so no fires start, then what? Makes no sense.



That video shows three very important things. First is the undeniable PROOF that the fires were way more intense on the south side (facing the towers) than they were on the north side (collapse footage is almost all from this side). Second, it shows that the conditions inside the building would prevent any sane person from entering it, be it to rig the building or whathaveyou. Third and most importantly, it showed that there was foreknowledge down on the ground that the building was in terrible shape and was going to collapse. Were the 8,000 workers down there in on the conspiracy too?

There were also cops that were videotaped counting down the collapse of the building 7...

People on the ground were most likely not in on any conspiracy... but the building being in terrible shape, doesn't change the fact that the building collapsed AT free fall speed, with whatever structure remaining falling straight down.

No matter how you slice it, there's no way that this could happen naturally for 17 floors of the collapse (at least).

Damage

First let's have a gander at what building 7 looked like on the south side pre 9/11.

Now go to 0:29 in the next video to see the true extent of the damage.



There is a HUGE gash down the center. Smoke is POURING out.

Freefall

Truth camp claims that the building fell in 6.5 seconds. They are LYING. Or they are STUPID. Or BOTH. From the time that the penthouse falls and the collapse has initiated, it is SIXTEEN seconds. "Freefall"? Pssssh. Not even close.



NIST

When running the models, they did it 4 different ways. When they ran it with damage only it stayed standing. When they ran it with damage and fires, the building fell. When they ran it with fire alone, the building fell. Then they ran it with no damage or fires, and instead removed a chunk of column 79 between floors 11 and 13. The building fell down.

"WTC 7 was prone to classic progressive collapse associated with the local failure of Column 79." (NCSTAR 1-A, p. 42)

So here's MY theory.

The damage redistributed loads. Fire then weakened the remaining structure. When column 79 was compromised, the penthouse fell and loads were redistributed again. 8 seconds later the north and west faces fell TOWARD the towers. Total collapse time is 16 seconds, no freefall, nothing "impossible" about it.

Yes, NIST has since change their position... they now admit that there was free-fall speeds for at least 17 floors of the collapse, and that they had artificially padded their timing the extra 40% to have a 'reasonable non-explosive' collapse time of 13+ seconds.

The problem is that if you have systemic failures, as they are explaining, the collapse time REQUIRED 13 seconds of actual collapse time... but now they've accepted 'free-fall' but don't accept the implications that this puts the rest of their theory into question.

 

[505]

Now, a touch MORE reality. There was a single individual acting on behalf of "an investment strategy" accounted for 80 or 90+ % of the volume of the put options on the two airlines was associated with a single individual, with "no conceivable ties to al-quaida".

It doesn't end there though, this person also put options on the investment firm handling the WTC complex, also investing in Raytheon (a company that saw a surge in stock price), all on the same days prior to the attacks. So, this persons admitted portfolio was to speculate SPECIFICALLY for a 9-11 attack.

Who was this individual? Where did you get the information about their trading activity?

So, this investor still has some 20 or million in profits sitting in paper stocks which cannot be touched as the FBI's conditions for investigation was "profiteers"... since this person has never claimed the cash only serves to further incriminate. Think about it, if you, as a good hearted individual made an investment move that you thought was prudent but wound up 'accidentally' predicting a massive terrorist attack, wouldn't you want to immediately clear your name?? At least get your money back from the stock, minus any profits?? I know it was 10's of millions of dollars we're talking about, so you can also conclude that the people involved have LOTS of money... which is specifically the classification of an individual that COULD provide financial assistance to the terrorists responsible, if that were to be the case...

Where are you finding this information? Also, what part of "no unusual volumes of puts" do you not understand? IGATB's list there clearly shows trading that EXCEEDS the volume that y'all are so suspicious of.

Ok, this is for the whole of the first post as well...

At this point, I think that Jones got SOMETHING wrong in his investigation, by claiming that it was 'thermitic' he pushed himself into a hole that he couldn't get out of without showing himself....

Considering the title of their paper is called "Active THERMITIC Material FOUND In WTC Dust", that SOMETHING (finding thermitic material) is pretty important, no?

That said, he did find a highly reactive nano-material... in the proving that such materials ACTUALLY existed at the time, I found a wide variety of 'nano-sol gel incendiaries' that each had their own reaction characteristics.

Can any of them cut vertical steel beams when applied in a thin paint like manner? Remember, the stuff was found UNREACTED. If it had been painted on like a thick foam we would have found chunks of it. Instead they found millions of tiny chips, some just red, some red/grey bi-layered, but all VERY thin. They estimate 3-10 tons of this particular material. You know what else is red, red/grey, and would have been in the WTC towers in a quantity of roughly the same amount and thickness?... primer, and paint. The chemical makeup of the chips is the same as the WTC paint. The chips ignite at a lower temperature than "nano incendiaries".

The end. The chips are paint!

Also, in the main floor lobby, Dr's having examined the bodies had determined that many people in the lobbies, at or around the times the planes hit the building were killed by an explosive.... I'll look for the sources again before I tread further on this...

Please do as this is the first I have heard of this one.

So, the plane hits the towers, there's some immediate structural damage, the debris and explosion had caused a high rate of damage that was concentrated in the zone where they hit, and in either case only directly impacted a portion of the buildings structure. The flames burned and weakened the steel where the fireproofing had been removed (the area surrounding the actual plane strike), then...

... the building buckled at the corner, and started off a chain reaction involving thousands of 10,000+ lb beams. These beams individually can wreak major havoc on a structure. Collectively, they all wanted to go DOWN. You know, gravity and all.

the flames were to spread to an area where fireproofing work had been performed by turner construction consisting of the elevator lobby area (I'll show the requisition form again later).

So? Is Turner Construction in the thermitic controlled demo industry?

So, since the flame had been burning for some time, 40-45 minutes weakening the quarter section which would add further stress to the other side when the effects of the fire acted like when you stand on a pop can all it takes is someone flicking it and the integrity fails completely.

I changed ONE word in the above quote and made it much closer to true for you.

Any explosive sounds after the failure is legitimized as the building began it's 3 story 60% of free-fall plunge through the remainder of the structure...

Wrong. Crashing building sounds distinctly different than explosives.

...why wouldn't there have been any signs of a collision as the failed structure collided with the undamaged lower floor?? I mean, If the top floor lands on the bottom floor, there would be a fraction of a second collision that would take downward energy from the fall untill the lower floor failed beneath it... but it was completely smooth accelleration.

Maybe to your untrained eye. Luckily there are a lot of smart people out there... I URGE you to seek them out and LEARN.

Finally, the 'squibbs' concept as being 'air pressure buildup' is completely nonsensical when you actually examine that theory from the video evidence. Namely that there's no way that you would have pressure buildup and blow out a window on the 30th floor a fraction of a second BEFORE one shooting out on the 40th floor when the collapse wave was at the 60th floor (the numbers being arbitrarily chosen, but the effect undeniable).

For someone with one of the best imaginations I have ever seen, you sure do take a small minded stance on a lot of scientific topics. In your above hypothetical, if the air volume in the 30th floor is LESS THAN the volume on the 40th floor, windows on the 30th floor can blow out before ones on the 40th... like say there are more closed off areas on 30. Or perhaps there is an express elevator that ends on 30. Open stairwell doors on 30. Weakened windows on 30. Defective windows on 30. Crappy installation of windows on 30.

I am sure there are way more than I have imagined here... but seriously man... you couldn't even think of ONE of these? It's just nonsensical and MUST mean controlled demo? :lol:

There were also cops that were videotaped counting down the collapse of the building 7...

If they were videotaped, where is the video?

Why would cops be involved in the controlled demo of WTC7?

Do you realize that every time you make a claim like this, you are adding a ****load of people into the conspiracy, all while claiming that it only needed a few higher ups and a bunch of dupes? If a cop is actually counting down for the demo, there are probably many other cops also listening. So shall we just go ahead and add the entire NYPD to your conspiracy group?

People on the ground were most likely not in on any conspiracy

...

WTF? You literally JUST said that they were counting down for the demo. Now they aren't "in on it"? Seriously man, seek help.

but the building being in terrible shape, doesn't change the fact that the building collapsed AT free fall speed, with whatever structure remaining falling straight down.

From the start of collapse to the end of collapse, it is NOT FREEFALL SPEED. We can not see what all collapsed on the south side or inside of the building. You truthers try to make it sound like the building went from perfectly fine to a big pile of rubble in 6.5 seconds, and that is completely FALSE.

Yes, NIST has since change their position... they now admit that there was free-fall speeds for at least 17 floors of the collapse,

Why is 17 floors suspicious? Would 15 be acceptable? How about 5? What is the limit? Have you looked at architectural drawings of building 7? How do you know that the support structure is not designed in such a way that 17 floors is perfectly plausible?

Also, if it's 17 floors, what about the other 30? How did the other 30 NOT collapse at freefall if it was controlled demo?

The problem is that if you have systemic failures, as they are explaining, the collapse time REQUIRED 13 seconds of actual collapse time... but now they've accepted 'free-fall' but don't accept the implications that this puts the rest of their theory into question.

Saying "the structure fell at free-fall for X amount of time" is not "accepting free-fall" the way you con-artists would like them to. Nice try though.

 

[usda select]

Who was this individual? Where did you get the information about their trading activity?



Where are you finding this information? Also, what part of "no unusual volumes of puts" do you not understand? IGATB's list there clearly shows trading that EXCEEDS the volume that y'all are so suspicious of.



Considering the title of their paper is called "Active THERMITIC Material FOUND In WTC Dust", that SOMETHING (finding thermitic material) is pretty important, no?



Can any of them cut vertical steel beams when applied in a thin paint like manner? Remember, the stuff was found UNREACTED. If it had been painted on like a thick foam we would have found chunks of it. Instead they found millions of tiny chips, some just red, some red/grey bi-layered, but all VERY thin. They estimate 3-10 tons of this particular material. You know what else is red, red/grey, and would have been in the WTC towers in a quantity of roughly the same amount and thickness?... primer, and paint. The chemical makeup of the chips is the same as the WTC paint. The chips ignite at a lower temperature than "nano incendiaries".

The end. The chips are paint!



Please do as this is the first I have heard of this one.



... the building buckled at the corner, and started off a chain reaction involving thousands of 10,000+ lb beams. These beams individually can wreak major havoc on a structure. Collectively, they all wanted to go DOWN. You know, gravity and all.



So? Is Turner Construction in the thermitic controlled demo industry?



I changed ONE word in the above quote and made it much closer to true for you.



Wrong. Crashing building sounds distinctly different than explosives.



Maybe to your untrained eye. Luckily there are a lot of smart people out there... I URGE you to seek them out and LEARN.





For someone with one of the best imaginations I have ever seen, you sure do take a small minded stance on a lot of scientific topics. In your above hypothetical, if the air volume in the 30th floor is LESS THAN the volume on the 40th floor, windows on the 30th floor can blow out before ones on the 40th... like say there are more closed off areas on 30. Or perhaps there is an express elevator that ends on 30. Open stairwell doors on 30. Weakened windows on 30. Defective windows on 30. Crappy installation of windows on 30.

I am sure there are way more than I have imagined here... but seriously man... you couldn't even think of ONE of these? It's just nonsensical and MUST mean controlled demo? :lol:



If they were videotaped, where is the video?

Why would cops be involved in the controlled demo of WTC7?

Do you realize that every time you make a claim like this, you are adding a ****load of people into the conspiracy, all while claiming that it only needed a few higher ups and a bunch of dupes? If a cop is actually counting down for the demo, there are probably many other cops also listening. So shall we just go ahead and add the entire NYPD to your conspiracy group?



...

WTF? You literally JUST said that they were counting down for the demo. Now they aren't "in on it"? Seriously man, seek help.



From the start of collapse to the end of collapse, it is NOT FREEFALL SPEED. We can not see what all collapsed on the south side or inside of the building. You truthers try to make it sound like the building went from perfectly fine to a big pile of rubble in 6.5 seconds, and that is completely FALSE.



Why is 17 floors suspicious? Would 15 be acceptable? How about 5? What is the limit? Have you looked at architectural drawings of building 7? How do you know that the support structure is not designed in such a way that 17 floors is perfectly plausible?

Also, if it's 17 floors, what about the other 30? How did the other 30 NOT collapse at freefall if it was controlled demo?





Saying "the structure fell at free-fall for X amount of time" is not "accepting free-fall" the way you con-artists would like them to. Nice try though.

Nobody has ever successfully addressed why you would need thermite if you had planes...or why you would need planes if you have thermite. Have you heard of the KISS agreement? It stands for Keep-It-Simple: Stupid. The conspiracy theorists seem to want to make it as complex an attack as possible with thermite, missiles, hijacking planes that they don't use in Arlington, VA, drone aircraft, etc... And when you ask them for any proof of the above; well you're way out of line.

I did like what he said,

I think that Jones got SOMETHING wrong in his investigation, by claiming that it was 'thermitic' he pushed himself into a hole that he couldn't get out of without showing himself....

Why would he worry about "showing himself"? He's allegedly a serious scientist who is respected by at least some. There is no "showing yourself"; you put your thesis out there and let others examine it. He didn't do that either though; did he?

 

[usda select]

At this point, I think that Jones got SOMETHING wrong in his investigation, by claiming that it was 'thermitic' he pushed himself into a hole that he couldn't get out of without showing himself....

Yeah he shouldn't have taken a stand and stated anything definitive. Like you and DOL.

 

[Demon of Light]

I mean...it is exactly like the seven year old who is afraid of the boogeyman in the closet. You open the closet, show him or her that nothing is going to hurt them and they end up spending the entire night scared to death of the boogeyman in the closet.

I am not really "scared" of or "stressed" about the system. When you look into things like Operation Gladio and the network of connections there, then look at similar networks connected with jihadist forces that intersect with terrorist attacks like the Oklahoma City Bombing and 9-11 it is hard to imagine someone not being suspicious.

For example, George Soros is notable for his bet against the Bank of England that led to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Yet he also helps fund the National Endowment for Democracy, that essentially took over for the CIA in fomenting coups and financing pro-U.S. movements around the world like in Venezuela in 2002, and he is well-noted for having prominent involvement with the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003. Also there is some linkage between him and Declan Ganley who ran a financial firm in Albania at a time when most were ponzi schemes used to facilitate arms trafficking throughout the Balkans. One of Ganley's firms had contracts with the U.S. military and included several former U.S. military officials. He later headed Libertas the political party that fought against the Lisbon Treaty. Soros has most recently been involved in the market action against Greece earlier this year with Soros himself talking about in causing the demise of the euro, which is no doubt the desired end of said actions.

All of that causes me to believe George Soros is deeply involved with imperialist American policy and his activities are in service of those ends, especially as it concerns disrupting the European Union to prevent it from emerging as a viable threat to American dominance in the world.

I have noted elsewhere the sequence of events and network of connections that cause me to suspect a conspiracy behind 9-11. While I would not rule out controlled-demolition, just as the NIST investigation could not rule it out, it would be at any rate irrelevant to my argument. In fact, I think it is entirely possible WTC 7 was brought down through a controlled demolition given the sensitive documents contained therein and the fact it had been evacuated long before it collapsed.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Who was this individual? Where did you get the information about their trading activity?

From the 9/11 commission report... they never named the individual, just the information about his contribution to the trading activity. They concluded that since this person had "no conceivable ties to al-quaida" and so was not investigated further.

Where are you finding this information? Also, what part of "no unusual volumes of puts" do you not understand? IGATB's list there clearly shows trading that EXCEEDS the volume that y'all are so suspicious of.

What is neglected is the RATIO of puts to calls... there was a definitive rise in that ratio just prior to 9-11 on both airlines.
Profiting From Disaster? - CBS Evening News - CBS News

So the confusion comes from semantics.

Considering the title of their paper is called "Active THERMITIC Material FOUND In WTC Dust", that SOMETHING (finding thermitic material) is pretty important, no?

He should have stuck with 'energetic', because the same test he uses that debunks it being thermite, since the aluminum portion would react with the mixture also proves that it's not paint.

It's possible he's a victim of his own findings... but I'll get back to this.

Can any of them cut vertical steel beams when applied in a thin paint like manner? Remember, the stuff was found UNREACTED. If it had been painted on like a thick foam we would have found chunks of it. Instead they found millions of tiny chips, some just red, some red/grey bi-layered, but all VERY thin. They estimate 3-10 tons of this particular material. You know what else is red, red/grey, and would have been in the WTC towers in a quantity of roughly the same amount and thickness?... primer, and paint. The chemical makeup of the chips is the same as the WTC paint. The chips ignite at a lower temperature than "nano incendiaries".

There's alot of possibilities on this one... because the prevailing idea is that the renovation work that is confirmed to have been performed on the elevator lobbies is what formed the central core of the building, and precisely the area that would require explosives rather then holding strong and having an 80+ floors of these columns holding strong... fireproofing comes in a few different varieties, one of which is applied with an airless paint compressor that, depending on the area goes on all the structural steel and must be at least half an inch thick, and in areas up to a full inch thick. Like with paint spray there isn't necessarily a solid piece either, and particles may wind up on drywall, in dead spaces, etc... and could have been expelled during collapse never actually contacting the material that was reacting.

So? Is Turner Construction in the thermitic controlled demo industry?

They don't have to be to be installing "fireproofing" and renovating elevator lobbies.

I changed ONE word in the above quote and made it much closer to true for you.

But that one word ALSO assumes the impossibility of the entire building in the affected floors having fireproofing removed.

Wrong. Crashing building sounds distinctly different than explosives.

I dunno, does this actually sound like the two floors colliding??

Maybe to your untrained eye. Luckily there are a lot of smart people out there... I URGE you to seek them out and LEARN.

So smart you used a strawman?? YOU KNOW that's not what I said.

For someone with one of the best imaginations I have ever seen, you sure do take a small minded stance on a lot of scientific topics. In your above hypothetical, if the air volume in the 30th floor is LESS THAN the volume on the 40th floor, windows on the 30th floor can blow out before ones on the 40th... like say there are more closed off areas on 30. Or perhaps there is an express elevator that ends on 30. Open stairwell doors on 30. Weakened windows on 30. Defective windows on 30. Crappy installation of windows on 30.

For someone claiming to be so smart you miss the mark by such a great distance... how to word this proper... ok, you have a balloon full of air that your forcing down pressure, if you put a hole that deflates the pressure in the balloon all the similar pressure will continue to go through the blown out path... it won't be able to build pressure between the source and the outlet of the pressure enough to have the higher section blow out with the same force.

But here's a closeup of this 'air pressure' :
YouTube - Visible Explosion at World Trade Center!
(58 seconds)

WTF? You literally JUST said that they were counting down for the demo. Now they aren't "in on it"? Seriously man, seek help.

YouTube - Smoking Gun Evidence WTC7 Was A Controlled Demolition

Man, do you really think that, assuming I'm correct for a moment, if someone had the clout to orchestrate 9-11 that they couldn't orchestrate someone to dress and act like a cop???

From the start of collapse to the end of collapse, it is NOT FREEFALL SPEED. We can not see what all collapsed on the south side or inside of the building. You truthers try to make it sound like the building went from perfectly fine to a big pile of rubble in 6.5 seconds, and that is completely FALSE.

That's why I said the collapse wave fell at 60% of free-fall. What I'm saying is that ... as example, you drop a bowling ball through a table and measure the speed and accelleration untill it hits the floor... even breaking through and maintaining alot of the speed, there is a noticeable DECELERATION at the points of collision.

Why is 17 floors suspicious? Would 15 be acceptable? How about 5? What is the limit? Have you looked at architectural drawings of building 7? How do you know that the support structure is not designed in such a way that 17 floors is perfectly plausible?

Also, if it's 17 floors, what about the other 30? How did the other 30 NOT collapse at freefall if it was controlled demo?

Another strawman... 17 floors was MEASURED and VERIFIED to have collapsed within 3% of free-fall accelleration... SO, the 5 stories that caused the failure... the deceleration would have kicked in as the sound structure disintegrated under it's own weight. The fact of the matter is 3% energy loss from gravity... in terms of a building, that's air-resistance. How did 17 floors of structure 'disappear'?? maybe more then 17, but 17 is measurable.

Saying "the structure fell at free-fall for X amount of time" is not "accepting free-fall" the way you con-artists would like them to. Nice try though.

No, yours is a simple con... it's a strawman at this point. NIST accepts the building fell at free-fall for that measured time. So, all those youtube vids are debunked by NIST in this matter.

I hope you like the videos I linked, which were recently released NIST footage... 3 terabytes worth of data was given over for public investigation... expect a 'wiki' style site to sift through the vast amount of data, but it's all newly released raw footage, pictures, etc that was used to conduct the investigation.

They fought the FOIA request for a longtime, when finally a lawsuit made them cough it all up.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Now, a touch MORE reality. There was a single individual acting on behalf of "an investment strategy" accounted for 80 or 90+ % of the volume of the put options on the two airlines was associated with a single individual, with "no conceivable ties to al-quaida".

B'man, do you have any idea how the stock market functions ... I'll guess no.

Have you ever bought shares or invested !!!

Now one individual "may" physically buy shares or whatever ... but that does NOT mean that ONLY that one person was buying ... it could be a broker whom will buy for several people or a consortium as part of hedge strategies or other Long option ... which could be part of a bigger box spread on the derivatives markets.

It means nothing really that one idividual purchased them.

A "put option" is really just having the right to sell a stock at a fixed price at a fixed date ... a "call option is the right to buy !!!

There is also the simple financial reality that those levels of options pre-9/11 were really quite SMALL by market standards.

In financial terms it equated to tens of millions in a market that routinely deals in BILLIONS.

Small change in finance really !!!

Don't forget that all option trades have EXPIRATION dates ... which means if not excised in a specific time-frame they become void, therefore worthless !!!

Now, there was understanding within the markets that the airline industry was in SERIOUS trouble, with several big companies facing bankruptcy as well as numerous smaller ones and large-scale downturn in business.

So for a futures investor it would make sense to buy up what was well KNOWN to be falling stock, for cheap to sell at a fixed price later when the market recovered.

Put options trading happens every single day ... there is nothing suspicous about it ... but what conspiracy promoters have done it to rely on the complete ignorance of their followers of the complexities of the market ... and told them it was "unusual", when it wasn't in the real world.

They "relied" on the fact that their followers would either completely not understand trading practices, for it IS hugely complicated or that they would'nt even bother.

But to those that know even a little about trading it is not a big deal ... do you seriously think that serious investors would not see this, yet COMPLETE amateurs can ... come on !!!

Markets are GLOBAL ... like science, and there is no way on this Earth that it would somehow not have been fully picked up and mentioned by other global investment markets.

Now this one individual, whom may have been a broker for several investors, or a single player bought up to 90% of puts for United as part of an "investment strategy" ... fair enough ... but here is the bit that all the conspiracy sites FAIL to tell you ...

That "strategy" ALSO included the PURCHASE of over a 1000,000 shares of American at the same time !!!

" ... 130. 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- investments 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.These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation.The SEC and the 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. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004)."

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

http://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/9-11-sec-report.pdf

You also say that this "person" had NO connections to al-Quaida ... but what does that mean ???

I have no connection to al-Quaida, does that make me part of some conspiracy, are all traders and brokers linked to al-Quaida ... for to make mention this person was "not" linked is an exceptionally weak inference he was therefore related to gubmint, for 9/11 was either a genuine terrorist attack or a dastardly gubmint inside jobby jobby !!!

Don't forget that after 9/11 ALL stocks fell drastically, with the airline, travel and holiday markets suffering the most ... no one made money on this, so for anyone in the "know" of an impending attack, where it was GUARANTEED stocks would almost collapse, and considering the undoubted chaos following when there was no way to know how long recovery would take ... it seems POINTLESS to purchase such SHORT-LIVED options to make money.

Put have a 90-day maximum life span ... after that they are valueless, there are BETTER ways of making a killing (bad pun sorry) on the market that that !!!

It doesn't end there though, this person also put options on the investment firm handling the WTC complex, also investing in Raytheon (a company that saw a surge in stock price), all on the same days prior to the attacks. So, this persons admitted portfolio was to speculate SPECIFICALLY for a 9-11 attack.

Please provide some source for this ... and puleez not from some idiotic conspiracy site ... something a wee bit more credible, you know since the market works in the full glare of publicity of the trading floor, there SHOULD be mention of this in any number of trade magazines or articles.

So do you have legitimate proof of this claim or are you just regurgitating what you got from conspiracy sites ???

snopes.com: September 11 Put Call

So, this investor still has some 20 or million in profits sitting in paper stocks which cannot be touched as the FBI's conditions for investigation was "profiteers"... since this person has never claimed the cash only serves to further incriminate. Think about it, if you, as a good hearted individual made an investment move that you thought was prudent but wound up 'accidentally' predicting a massive terrorist attack, wouldn't you want to immediately clear your name?? At least get your money back from the stock, minus any profits??

It is now nearly nine years later ... do you really think those options even exist anymore ???

There is a quite short trading life for options, and as said above if not excised by the expiration date they are not even worth the paper they are printed on !!!

Now, after 9/11 when the stock market was down ... and confidence in the airline, travel and holiday industries had plummetted, perhaps this one individual, more likely several, just decided NOT to put any more strain on a suffering market and forfeited their options, they don't need inform anyone just wait for expiration !!!

If I thought the market needed confidence restored more than personal gain ... I would just leave them there !!!

I know it was 10's of millions of dollars we're talking about, so you can also conclude that the people involved have LOTS of money... which is specifically the classification of an individual that COULD provide financial assistance to the terrorists responsible, if that were to be the case...

Sorry B'man but investing levels of just 10's of millions for stocks that usually are traded in BILLIONS is nothing ... it's small stuff really, now I know that to many people the thought of "tens of millions" is astronomical, but to global markets it is peanuts !!!

American Airlines is the SECOND largest in the world ... NYSE:AMR as it is known on the floor of the New York Exchange, posted consolidated gains in the second quarter of this year of over $ 5.5 BILLION ... losing in the same period last year around $ 390 MILLION !!!

So the options of 9/11 were peanuts ... why is it such a big deal ???

Again, I think this is another case of being overtly suspicious of a process that most have no idea what is involved, and that LACK of knowledge leading them to fall for the deeply flawed presentations of the conspiracy promoters.

It is EASY B'man to get fooled into believing something you do not know the ins-and-outs of !!!

Have you ever spoken to a trader or someone that works in finance and asked them how it works, and whether or not there is anything to this put option guff !!!

Here try out trading yourself, see whether you can work out how it functions ... it's virtual, so no real money ...

Investing on the Stock Exchange

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

At this point, I think that Jones got SOMETHING wrong in his investigation, by claiming that it was 'thermitic' he pushed himself into a hole that he couldn't get out of without showing himself.... That said, he did find a highly reactive nano-material... in the proving that such materials ACTUALLY existed at the time, I found a wide variety of 'nano-sol gel incendiaries' that each had their own reaction characteristics.

He DIDN'T find anything "highly reactive" ... thermitic or otherwise !!!

He also didn't find anything that "nano" either !!!

He found something which was suggestive of thermitic material, which were unresponsive in an MEK bath, having sat there for ages doing nothing ... and by NOT doing the ONE SIMPLE TEST for thermitic material failed UTTERLY in scientific standard.

Thermite compounds can burn without oxygen ... so ALL he had to do was see if it ignited in a vacuum.

Simple, simple, simple test which ANY competent scientist would have done ...so why did he not do it ???

Much more likely it was paint ...

This post is from an incredibly long thread which has some great technical details, but it is to the point in science ...

JREF Forum - View Single Post - [Closed]Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

[Closed]Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center - JREF Forum

Also, in the main floor lobby, Dr's having examined the bodies had determined that many people in the lobbies, at or around the times the planes hit the building were killed by an explosive.... I'll look for the sources again before I tread further on this...

Indeed do B'man, save yourself a fall ... for there was NO such determinations ever made ... there was simply ZERO signs of people suffering from BAROTRAUMA.

Barotrauma is the known and highly recognizable injuries suffered from being in close proximity to blast events.

There WERE reports of people being seen with "skin falling off" ... which is a characteristic of FIRE and not explosives !!!

So, since the flame had been burning for some time, 40-45 minutes weakening the quarter section which would add further stress to the other side when the effects of the incendiary acted like when you stand on a pop can all it takes is someone flicking it and the integrity fails completely.

This is COMPLETE speculation on your part and bears no semblence with reality B'man.

For a start why would you have some sort of "incendiary" in a fire ... ???

It makes no sense, and is just you brainstorming or flying with a vague "idea" !!!

Any explosive sounds after the failure is legitimized as the building began it's 3 story 60% of free-fall plunge through the remainder of the structure...

Again this is just total speculatory nonsense, for what possible reason would explosive noises need legitimizing of a building already falling ???

Explosives would have zero effect once collapse started ... they would be pointless !!!

Controlled demolitions work by explosives being used to initially remove structural integrity and LETTING gravity do the rest !!!

Explosives AFTER collapse would be completely stupid, as they would do NOTHING !!!

but it was completely smooth accelleration.

No, it wasn't, and anybody that works in demolition will be only too happy to tell you.

Don't forget B'man, you (and half the planet) were watching it on TV ... please tell me that you really dont think that, by virtue of the limitations of clarity of watching a HUGE structure collapse on a whatever-inch screen can show you ENOUGH definition to make that call !!!

It is IMPOSSILBE to convey true scale on a small screen, and therefore much visual information is compressed, not giving the full and more accurate visual information.

You simply can't see enough to say that with certainty ... I bet those physically nearby would judge it more ragged than "smooth" !!!

http://www.implosionworld.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf

Finally, the 'squibbs' concept as being 'air pressure buildup' is completely nonsensical when you actually examine that theory from the video evidence. Namely that there's no way that you would have pressure buildup and blow out a window on the 30th floor a fraction of a second BEFORE one shooting out on the 40th floor when the collapse wave was at the 60th floor (the numbers being arbitrarily chosen, but the effect undeniable).

Rubbish B'man, the so-called "squibs" are perfectly in keeping with the known and accepted principles of gas and pressure, known as Boyle's Law, a principle known and understood since 1662 !!!

Boyle's Law states that the volume of a gas (of which air is one) is inversely proportional to pressure ... that means that if you HALF the volume of gas you DOUBLE the pressure.

Now, seeing as how the WTC was collapsing, the volume (of air) was clearly decreasing, and, AS per Boyles Law, if the volume decreases, the pressure HAS to increase ... ergo, the very few (too few for real demolition) blasts of ejected debris and air, channeled down through stairwells and corridors, etc and forced out through windows as seen on video and photographs.

(Like the plunger in a syringe)

Now I know that some people like to call them "squibs" as that is supposedly the slang term for demolition "explosions".

However, the amusing thing about ALL the videos and photos of these "squibs" is that they are ALWAYS seen AFTER the buildings have already STARTED to collapse.

Go ahead and try to find one showing "squibs" BEFORE the buildings started to collapse.

Last I checked B'man, cause comes before effect !!!

Also air does not need "time" to build up pressure ... think hydraulics.

There were also cops that were videotaped counting down the collapse of the building 7...

Seriously, not this old crud again.

If you remember correctly, it was NOT "cops" that there was supposedly doing some sort of "countdown" as reported by self-proclaimed paramedic Kevin McPadden.

He reported hearing some sort of "pulsing" noise coming from a RED CROSS representatives radio ... that has been chinese-whispered into "countdown by cops".

" ... We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown."

So unless the Red Cross are now "in" on it too ... this can be rejected for the rumour-milled guff it is !!!

People on the ground were most likely not in on any conspiracy... but the building being in terrible shape, doesn't change the fact that the building collapsed AT free fall speed, with whatever structure remaining falling straight down.

What do you mean "AT" ... that is a blatent falsehood.

No matter how you slice it, there's no way that this could happen naturally for 17 floors of the collapse (at least).

Why not ... are buildings (well everything actually) not constantly under the influence of the force of gravity ???

Why would anything fall in any other direction than DOWN ???

Yes, NIST has since change their position... they now admit that there was free-fall speeds for at least 17 floors of the collapse, and that they had artificially padded their timing the extra 40% to have a 'reasonable non-explosive' collapse time of 13+ seconds.

So what ... just because they reviewed position with new information does not negate understanding.

Books are revised, timetables are revised, information is updated regularly, etc, etc, etc ... still doesn't make previous information less reliable !!!

Making mountains out of molehills here B'man !!!

The problem is that if you have systemic failures, as they are explaining, the collapse time REQUIRED 13 seconds of actual collapse time... but now they've accepted 'free-fall' but don't accept the implications that this puts the rest of their theory into question.

How does an incredibly SHORT period of freefall put anything into question ... it simply doesn't !!!

The time it took the building to fall is 40% slower than it would be if the building had accelerated at the rate of gravity for the entire time.

The building therfore DID encounter significant resistance during this time, so much so that it could offset a period of 2.5 seconds where one corner was essentially in freefall for a tiny few seconds.

There's no deception or suspicion here.

Maths is maths !!!

This is the ultimate grasping at straws ... for a period of freefall ultimately shows nothing, other than there was more internal damage than can be deduced from outside.

Freefall is not some impossible achievement within the chaos and dynamism of a collapse ... however it is caused.

Some parts of a landslide will flow faster over the same terraqin than others ... means nothing !!!

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Just noticed I posted a broken link ... sorry ... :3oops:

DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”?

No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.

ImplosionWorld.com

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

I dunno, does this actually sound like the two floors colliding??

It most certainly is NOT the sound of explosive demolition, more like the accumulating rumble of an approaching avalanche !!!

... how to word this proper... ok, you have a balloon full of air that your forcing down pressure, if you put a hole that deflates the pressure in the balloon all the similar pressure will continue to go through the blown out path... it won't be able to build pressure between the source and the outlet of the pressure enough to have the higher section blow out with the same force.

But here's a closeup of this 'air pressure' :
YouTube - Visible Explosion at World Trade Center!
(58 seconds)

Sorry B'man, but this analogy fails utterly ... D minus for your science project here, for you cannot compare a ballon with a wholly homogenous interior to a building full of staggered stairways, objects, doors opened or closed and internal arrangements !!!

Doesn't work ...:doh

Your video though, is excellent, for it clearly shows what was a build-up of air and pressure ... now although the building was not collapsing at that time, it very well could have been the pressure release of any number of objects likely to suffer damage and cook-off in fire, or that somebody opened a door to a fireball.

It certainly was not a "squib" !!!

 

[usda select]

B'man, do you have any idea how the stock market functions ... I'll guess no.

Have you ever bought shares or invested !!!

Now one individual "may" physically buy shares or whatever ... but that does NOT mean that ONLY that one person was buying ... it could be a broker whom will buy for several people or a consortium as part of hedge strategies or other Long option ... which could be part of a bigger box spread on the derivatives markets.

It means nothing really that one idividual purchased them.

A "put option" is really just having the right to sell a stock at a fixed price at a fixed date ... a "call option is the right to buy !!!

There is also the simple financial reality that those levels of options pre-9/11 were really quite SMALL by market standards.

In financial terms it equated to tens of millions in a market that routinely deals in BILLIONS.

Small change in finance really !!!

Don't forget that all option trades have EXPIRATION dates ... which means if not excised in a specific time-frame they become void, therefore worthless !!!

Now, there was understanding within the markets that the airline industry was in SERIOUS trouble, with several big companies facing bankruptcy as well as numerous smaller ones and large-scale downturn in business.

So for a futures investor it would make sense to buy up what was well KNOWN to be falling stock, for cheap to sell at a fixed price later when the market recovered.

Put options trading happens every single day ... there is nothing suspicous about it ... but what conspiracy promoters have done it to rely on the complete ignorance of their followers of the complexities of the market ... and told them it was "unusual", when it wasn't in the real world.

They "relied" on the fact that their followers would either completely not understand trading practices, for it IS hugely complicated or that they would'nt even bother.

But to those that know even a little about trading it is not a big deal ... do you seriously think that serious investors would not see this, yet COMPLETE amateurs can ... come on !!!

Markets are GLOBAL ... like science, and there is no way on this Earth that it would somehow not have been fully picked up and mentioned by other global investment markets.

Now this one individual, whom may have been a broker for several investors, or a single player bought up to 90% of puts for United as part of an "investment strategy" ... fair enough ... but here is the bit that all the conspiracy sites FAIL to tell you ...

That "strategy" ALSO included the PURCHASE of over a 1000,000 shares of American at the same time !!!

" ... 130. 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- investments 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.These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation.The SEC and the 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. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004)."

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

http://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/9-11-sec-report.pdf

You also say that this "person" had NO connections to al-Quaida ... but what does that mean ???

I have no connection to al-Quaida, does that make me part of some conspiracy, are all traders and brokers linked to al-Quaida ... for to make mention this person was "not" linked is an exceptionally weak inference he was therefore related to gubmint, for 9/11 was either a genuine terrorist attack or a dastardly gubmint inside jobby jobby !!!

Anything other than a straight line is too complex for some.

I have the option to buy stock in my company for 85% of market share. At 11:59 PM on12/31/10, the option expires. That may help him.

Don't forget that after 9/11 ALL stocks fell drastically, with the airline, travel and holiday markets suffering the most ... no one made money on this, so for anyone in the "know" of an impending attack, where it was GUARANTEED stocks would almost collapse, and considering the undoubted chaos following when there was no way to know how long recovery would take ... it seems POINTLESS to purchase such SHORT-LIVED options to make money.

Puts have a 90-day maximum life span ... after that they are valueless, there are BETTER ways of making a killing (bad pun sorry) on the market that that !!!

VERY Bad pun!

Please provide some source for this ... and puleez not from some idiotic conspiracy site ... something a wee bit more credible, you know since the market works in the full glare of publicity of the trading floor, there SHOULD be mention of this in any number of trade magazines or articles.

So do you have legitimate proof of this claim or are you just regurgitating what you got from conspiracy sites ???

snopes.com: September 11 Put Call

One man's conspiracy site is another man's Associated Press. How would you like to be the content provider to the koo koo sites? I mean, just dream up stuff and pow, its picked up by all three gazillion of them.

It is now nearly nine years later ... do you really think those options even exist anymore ???

There is a quite short trading life for options, and as said above if not excised by the expiration date they are not even worth the paper they are printed on !!!

Now, after 9/11 when the stock market was down ... and confidence in the airline, travel and holiday industries had plummetted, perhaps this one individual, more likely several, just decided NOT to put any more strain on a suffering market and forfeited their options, they don't need inform anyone just wait for expiration !!!

If I thought the market needed confidence restored more than personal gain ... I would just leave them there !!!

Good point

A sell option where there is a floor of what you'll get would seem to make much more sense. Or an investment in airlines other than American or United.

Sorry B'man but investing levels of just 10's of millions for stocks that usually are traded in BILLIONS is nothing ... it's small stuff really, now I know that to many people the thought of "tens of millions" is astronomical, but to global markets it is peanuts !!!

American Airlines is the SECOND largest in the world ... NYSE:AMR as it is known on the floor of the New York Exchange, posted consolidated gains in the second quarter of this year of over $ 5.5 BILLION ... losing in the same period last year around $ 390 MILLION !!!

So the options of 9/11 were peanuts ... why is it such a big deal ???

Yesterday, AMR had a volume of $380,803,493.84. One stock in the entire market. I would bet when some read that figure, they'll assume that American Airlines made that much money yesterday on their stock. How very sad.

Again, I think this is another case of being overtly suspicious of a process that most have no idea what is involved, and that LACK of knowledge leading them to fall for the deeply flawed presentations of the conspiracy promoters.

It is EASY B'man to get fooled into believing something you do not know the ins-and-outs of !!!

Have you ever spoken to a trader or someone that works in finance and asked them how it works, and whether or not there is anything to this put option guff !!!

Or they could always just call some of the first responders and ask them what they saw instead of relying on videos. Ask the families if the phone calls were authentic. Ask the firemen in Arlington what they saw. But no; we all know they won't do that. Too much risk is involved.

Here try out trading yourself, see whether you can work out how it functions ... it's virtual, so no real money ...

Investing on the Stock Exchange

[/quote]
Thanks for the tip.

Again, you deserve a medal.

 

[BmanMcfly]

B'man, do you have any idea how the stock market functions ... I'll guess no.
...
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

http://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/9-11-sec-report.pdf

You also say that this "person" had NO connections to al-Quaida ... but what does that mean ???

First, it's not the NUMBER of Puts OR the number of Calls... but the RATIO of puts vs calls when there was nothing in the media to suggest that this would be a prudent idea... actually, analysts were reporting 'airline stocks set to soar'. So, under the circumstances, the EXPECTED trades would be similar levels of puts to calls.... so, this spin attempt is a bit of a fail.

That meant that, according to the 9-11 commission, since he had no connection to the terrorist group that was scapegoated, that he was therefore not suspected of anything further. Look, don't ask me this, ask the 9-11 commission... but I wouldn't expect much since they answered only about a third of the questions they were asked by the victims families, to investigate.

I have no connection to al-Quaida, does that make me part of some conspiracy, are all traders and brokers linked to al-Quaida ... for to make mention this person was "not" linked is an exceptionally weak inference he was therefore related to gubmint, for 9/11 was either a genuine terrorist attack or a dastardly gubmint inside jobby jobby !!!

No, but when you're engaged in what is, to any sensible requirement, proof of insider trading, but because you have 'no ties to___' means you are off the hook is just as nonsensical as what you're trying to imply here.

Don't forget that after 9/11 ALL stocks fell drastically, with the airline, travel and holiday markets suffering the most ... no one made money on this, so for anyone in the "know" of an impending attack, where it was GUARANTEED stocks would almost collapse, and considering the undoubted chaos following when there was no way to ...ake money.

Put have a 90-day maximum life span ... after that they are valueless, there are BETTER ways of making a killing (bad pun sorry) on the market that that !!!

The clear point of these trades WAS NOT to make money... but sent a clear message of foreknowledge, since the suspicious trades involved : the specific airline companies, the specific reinsurance company, the specific defense contractor the was used for the afghanistan invasion, etc... all specifically the days before the attacks... so it's perfect timing.

So, because this person also had the funds to let 10-20million dollars go to waste, it's safe to assume that this person has a few million more...

Please provide some source for this ... and puleez not from some idiotic con...
snopes.com: September 11 Put Call

Yes, it's in the 9-11 comission report... the insider trades are relegated to 2 paragraphs, and a reference.

The rest of the sources are mainstream news articles.
Suspicious profits sit uncollected / Airline investors seem to be lying low
Telegraph | Money | Profits of doom (cached)
CJOnline.com | The Topeka Capital-Journal | Exchange examines odd jump 09/19/01 (cached)
Profiting From Disaster? - CBS Evening News - CBS News
Operations Research Management Science - Prediction Models

It is now nearly nine years later ... do you really think those options even exist anymore ???
...
If I thought the market needed confidence restored more than personal gain ... I would just leave them there !!!

As a moral person, if I had unwittingly made an investment 'faux-pas' like this accidentally, I would immediately come in and say 'hey listen, I made this investment, it was a total accident, can I reclaim my money at the rate I had purchased?'

We ARE talking about millions of dollars afterall.

Sorry B'man but investing levels of just 10's of millions for stocks that usually ...

So the options of 9/11 were peanuts ... why is it such a big deal ???

Insider trading is illegal. Insider trading on the worst terrorist attack on america since pearl harbor, is absolutely reprehensible... even IF the person only made a few hundred thousand... what relevance does the world stock market trades have to do with anything on this subject??

We're talking about trades of SPECIFIC COMPANIES, in the SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS, at the SPECIFIC TIME, and of an ABNORMALLY HIGH rate. Those factors combine constitutes the PROOF of insider trading. Somebody knew something, and they wanted to let people know without getting prosecuted.

He DIDN'T find anything "highly reactive" ....
Much more likely it was paint ...

Actually, the SAME test that would have shown it to be paint is the one that would have reacted with the aluminum, and the test results was that it was NOT paint chips. Read through the process he used... I've also read the debunkings where it says it would react with aluminum.. which shows that it wasn't aluminum based thermitic material, but rather something different. As I had linked before that there are a WIDE VARIETY of sol-gel incendiaries with a wide variety of properties... I'm not saying that Jones was correct... but the debunkings only goes to show that it wasn't specifically thermite.

Also, it's not the CHIPS that were 'nano scale' it was the MIXTURE that was nano-scale... Unlike your sparklers which are macro scale particles, the particles were viewed in the 200UM scale, with the particles themselves being a fraction of that scale.

I don't want to have to read his paper a third time, but he DID burn the material, and for the small size of the particles gave off alot of energy... I don't recall if he did the test in a vacuum.

Indeed do B'man, save yourself a fall ... for there was NO such determinations ever...
There WERE reports of people being seen with "skin falling off" ... which is a characteristic of FIRE and not explosives !!!

Ok, but if an explosion is behind something like a sheet of drywall, it might shoot the board right off the wall, causing the injuries without the barotrauma, and an underlying assumption is that any explosives would have to be placed in such a way that nobody actually saw any explosives.

This is COMPLETE speculation on your part and bears no semblence with reality B'man.
...

It makes no sense, and is just you brainstorming or flying with a vague "idea" !!!

Listen, the NIST report shows a graph of their estimates on the column damage, which I could accept, because it shows the damage that relates to what can be confirmed from the mass of video.

So, That region is also the area of the building that would have had all fireproofing elements removed, the largest part of the fireball, and the fire would spread from there. So, initially the fire burns the unprotected steel, and as the fuel is consumed, and the flames spread, the flames die down in the critically damaged section, so the steel begins to cool, any warping / weakening is lessened...in the first building to fall alot of debris piled up in the corner, and there was a bit of sagging, that's the area where you see the bright orange molten SOMETHING pouring out of the building. Anyway, the fire had to burn through :
a) drywall : 1 hr rating / 5/8th inch.
b) ceiling tile : 1 hr rating (though undoubtedly a portion of the tiles fell out with the collision.
c) fireproofing : 1-2 hr rating

I know that in real life situations the fire burns through these things much faster then they are rated for, don't worry...

But to illustrate my point : When I was a teen, I'd notice this fluff on the grass that came from the trees... so, sometimes I would light small patches of them for minor entertainment value. They burn hot, but the fuel gets used up and the flame moves on before any of the grass is damaged.

Further, while computers desks and chairs will burn really hot, things like carpeting, drywall, etc don't make for good additional fuel... that's why there was the firefighter that radioed in thinking he could handle the fires with a single line. Unfortunately he was mistaken, and he didn't make it out.

The point is : that let's say that corner of the building failed, and the weight differences DID cause the rest of the floors, how was the concrete already being pulverized and shooting out... but more importantly, why did the core columns fail simultaneously, in theory they were designed to act as a guidepost if flames caused structural collapse... except the core would be mostly left standing... since after the first few floors, the floors structure would break free from the columns with the types of force involved...

So, something doesn't quite add up in the scenario... especially when the video CLEARLY shows that while the building tilts initially, it then changes direction and follows straight through the rest of the undamaged structure. ONLY losing 40% of it's energy, WITH all the debris that shot out several hundred feet outward.

Individually, I'm sure you could answer each one, but there's no explanation as to how all these happened simultaneously.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Again this is just total speculatory nonsense, for what possible reason would explosive noises need legitimizing of a building already falling ???

Because, the building HAD TO look like a collapse by fire to get the most iconic effect possible from the event. To just have the towers burning, but the SYMBOL of american economic dominance was destroyed, so, by having the explosions timed with the initiation of collapse, it makes any sound legitimized as you said, and also helps to make sure the building comes down cleanly.... had the top of the building toppled over as a single unit would be far more catastrophic.

Explosives would have zero effect once collapse started ... they would be pointless !!!

To keep the collapse wave from losing more then 40% of gravities energy (converted to heat, and outward momentum), while grinding up most of all the concrete in the building.

Controlled demolitions work by explosives being used to initially remove structural integrity and LETTING gravity do the rest !!!

More like the verinage effect... where the explosives took out the core and gravity handled the rest, timed with the moment the building started to collapse naturally.

Don't forget B'man, you (and half the planet) were watching it on TV ... p...
http://www.implosionworld.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf

That's nonsense... there's so many angles available, many of them high quality (as in no movement, and with other objects to triangulate distances.

That PDF has maybe 2 good points... but then he goes and says that technically, the machines wouldn't necessarily be able to PROVE anything one way or the other, though it does serve a purpose, and the rest of his argument is "too complicated".

Rubbish B'man, the so-called "squibs" are perfectly in keeping with the known ...

Also air does not need "time" to build up pressure ... think hydraulics.

You're absolutely missing the point ... let's say you have a syringe with a hole in the side of it... HOW would you build up enough pressure between the hole and the um... pusher thing, to pop a second hole??

You keep telling me stuff that I know and I keep saying you're missing the point of what is a verifiable situation that proves that this could not be the case. So, it's been electrical boxes (which are nowhere NEAR any outside windows in the first place) and air pressue... that point is that there's no reasonable explanation... ESPECIALLY NOW that you've seen the video where the window blows out BEFORE there was any pressure to buildup.

To be fair... MAYBE it would be a natural gas pipe bursting... but if you consider scale that's not something minor.

Seriously, not this old crud again.
...
So unless the Red Cross are now "in" on it too ... this can be rejected for the rumour-milled guff it is !!!

Of course... I know the rules. Only designated eyewitnesses... designated by yourself.

Also, again, who's to say that a person with as much clout ot 'orchestrate' 9-11 wouldn't be capable of 'orchestrating' people in disguises on the ground???

What do you mean "AT" ... that is a blatent falsehood.

Within 3%. Whatever... NIST FINALLY ADMITTED that it will at this rate. Splitting hairs.

Why not ... are buildings (well everything actually) not constantly under the influence of the force of gravity ???

Yes, but there's structure holding it up... and RESISTANCE would reduce the rate of accelleration due to gravity.

Why would anything fall in any other direction than DOWN ???

*facepalm* You're smart enough to know what I mean... yet I feel like I need to draw a picture. If you push the ladder away from the wall from the top gravity will pull you the rest of the way, but you won't be going straight down, because (assuming you hold on) the resistance of the ladder will make you fall in an arc down.

So what ... just because they reviewed position with new information does not negate understanding.
...

Making mountains out of molehills here B'man !!!

STOP PLAYING DUMB! You suck at it.

YOU KNOW DAMN WELL WHAT THAT MEANS!!! 17 floors of building 7 DISAPPEARED... GONE. Not the 5-6 floors where they claim that the truss failed. If it went AT FREEFALL (MINUS air resistance, since you've proven that you require the specification everytime) then suddenly there would be additional resistance of the building... instead, it maintained a smooth accelleration for the entire 17 floors that can be measured.

Ok... so you tell me... how did 17 floors DISAPPEAR.. cause dropping something the size of a building is going to easily create 1-5% air resistance, meaning there was NOTHING THERE TO SLOW DOWN THE ACCELLERATION...

How does an incredibly SHORT period of freefall put anything into question ... it simply doesn't !!!

Because they are claiming simultaneously the process that they are claiming took down the building REQUIRED 40% of gravities accelleration lost to friction of whatever kind. So, the way they got reality to fit the model was by ARTIFICIALLY creating an ARBITRARY start time.

Their expertise must be in deceit cause you still believe them.

The time it took the building to fall is 40% slower than it would be if the building had accelerated at the rate of gravity for the entire time.

Sigh.... as more rubblie is piling up OF COURSE the accelleration will slow down... why did it take at least 17 stories before that happened???

Maths is maths !!!
...e parts of a landslide will flow faster over the same terraqin than others ... means nothing !!!

Honestly, controlled demolitions where I've went and measured the collapse rates have all been in the range of 60 - 70% of free-fall accelleration... and that's WITH explosives and the whole building being prepped for demolition. (verinage demolitions had even slower acceleration rates)

Your video though, is excellent, for it clearly shows what was a build-up of air and .It certainly was not a "squib" !!!

Oh no... of course not... the fire is several floors higher then this blown out window. Is a close up view of the EXACT same effect that you're claiming elsewhere IS airpressure.. (Neglecting the fact that this 'buildup' had to bust through a door, maintain laserlike precision across the section of the building untill it bursts through a singular window.

Can you tell me just how much pressure this would take??? Given that these doors typically aren't any sort of airtight seal, and the elevators don't 'end' on the middle floors, what else might you claim... an elevator will ONLY fall down if ALL the cables are cut, otherwise it will fall UP, also, the sensors in the elevators are designed in a drop situation to claw so hard into the guide beams that the literally have to cut the piece out and replace it if this happens, so most often an elevator can only fall a matter of feet.

Umm... well, it can't be any sort of explosion... natural gas pipes are usually marked at 120 psi, I suppose that might break a window... but I doubt it would show that much pressure only to die off so soon after...

 

[creativedreams]

Within 3%. Whatever... NIST FINALLY ADMITTED that it will at this rate. Splitting hairs.



Yes, but there's structure holding it up... and RESISTANCE would reduce the rate of accelleration due to gravity.

STOP PLAYING DUMB! You suck at it.

YOU KNOW DAMN WELL WHAT THAT MEANS!!! 17 floors of building 7 DISAPPEARED... GONE. Not the 5-6 floors where they claim that the truss failed. If it went AT FREEFALL (MINUS air resistance, since you've proven that you require the specification everytime) then suddenly there would be additional resistance of the building... instead, it maintained a smooth accelleration for the entire 17 floors that can be measured.

Ok... so you tell me... how did 17 floors DISAPPEAR.. cause dropping something the size of a building is going to easily create 1-5% air resistance, meaning there was NOTHING THERE TO SLOW DOWN THE ACCELLERATION...



Because they are claiming simultaneously the process that they are claiming took down the building REQUIRED 40% of gravities accelleration lost to friction of whatever kind. So, the way they got reality to fit the model was by ARTIFICIALLY creating an ARBITRARY start time.

Their expertise must be in deceit cause you still believe them.



Sigh.... as more rubblie is piling up OF COURSE the accelleration will slow down... why did it take at least 17 stories before that happened???

Exactly....each building had 47 vertical steel columns that ran from bedrock to the top floor. These vertical core columns were fastened and welded all the way up making each of these 47 vertical core columns one piece of steel from bedrock to the top floor.

These vertical core columns somehow provided virtually zero resistance for at least 17 stories of freefall....

The bought and paid for "debunking" propaganda we got instead of a real investigation focused on the horizontal floor trusses and NOT THE VERTICAL CORE COLUMNS RUNNING FROM BEDROCK TO THE TOP FLOOR WHICH WERE FASTENED AND WELDED ALL THE WAY UP MAKING THEM EACH VIRTUALLY ONE LENGTH OF STEEL...
not to mention if a ball was dropped from the top floor in each building at the same time of "collapse" it would hit the ground only a couple seconds faster....

not to mention the steel cage of support in the perimeter of the buildings....

not to mention somehow everything was exploded into fine dust except the steel before the buildings even hit the ground....

even an ABC News headline read "Twin Towers Exploded Like a Bag of Flour"


Twin Towers Exploded Like a Bag of Flour
Everything but the steel was exploded into fine dust before the buildings even hit the ground...

 

[creativedreams]

I wish someone would respond to this because I would like to post many documented statements to back this...even from physicists from NASA, and so many other prominent people world wide, etc.... who say quite disturbing things about 9/11 and what U.S.A. has evovled to.....

 

[usda select]

I wish someone would respond to this because I would like to post many documented statements to back this...even from physicists from NASA, and so many other prominent people world wide, etc.... who say quite disturbing things about 9/11 and what U.S.A. has evovled to.....

Nobody had ever seen attacks like this so all of the commentary is amateurish anecdotes by dilettante commentators. You can take all of them and simply dismiss them. It would be much like asking 50 people on the street in Cleveland about warfare. You'll get crazy responses just as you did with these people you call experts.

To weigh them for anything, you have to be psychologically predisposed. Case in point, for every one person saying "disturbing things" there are tens of thousands in the same field not saying it. Yet you and others here give the minority voices much more weight--hence evidence of your pre-disposition.

If you're not happy in the US, boats, planes, and trains leave every day. Bon voyage.

 

[505]

I wish someone would respond to this...

Did you read the other posts in the thread? Do you have anything to add other than your usual cut/paste?

You have been shown in this thread that there WAS resistance in the collapses, yet you say that the vertical columns offered ZERO resistance. Why do you insist on staying in lala land?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Did you read the other posts in the thread? Do you have anything to add other than your usual cut/paste?

You have been shown in this thread that there WAS resistance in the collapses, yet you say that the vertical columns offered ZERO resistance. Why do you insist on staying in lala land?

Yes, there was a the collapse wave accellerating at 60% of free-fall accelleration... of course there was resistance... even air resistance of that large a structure would not be negligeable. The problem is the extent of the destruction from the first floor of collapse initiating... it drops at 60%, crashes through the first floor maintaining 60%, and then plows through, pulverizing essentially all the concrete and maintaining 60% of free fall the entire time... when the explanation would leave the inner core columns standing... at least a portion of the way up... 50-80 floors (and I don't mean those outer columns that stayed standing for a while after the main collapse), I mean the INNER CORE columns + elevator shafts, cause I seriously think you are under-estimating JUST HOW MUCH concrete goes into an elevator shaft EVEN IN red-iron buildings like that.

 

[CriticalThought]

Clearly the towers were brought down by...

*Reaches into hat and pulls out random paper*

A laser beam shot from the Arctic Circle, reflected off a satellite, reconfigured through a space mirror into holograms that looks like hijacked planes, which then instantly melted the support beams and caused a sudden air pressure change which looked like an explosion.

I have proof! If you look clearly at some of the footage you can see a bright yellow dot in the sky! That is the laser beam!

 

[BmanMcfly]

Clearly the towers were brought down by...

*Reaches into hat and pulls out random paper*

A laser beam shot from the Arctic Circle, reflected off a satellite, reconfigured through a space mirror into holograms that looks like hijacked planes, which then instantly melted the support beams and caused a sudden air pressure change which looked like an explosion.

I have proof! If you look clearly at some of the footage you can see a bright yellow dot in the sky! That is the laser beam!

Ok, well, what we KNOW is that most of the concrete was pulverized and the collapse wave was at 60% of free-fall acceleration... what we KNOW is that WTC7 collapsed at a rate of 95% of free-fall speeds for at least 17 floors... flame cannot conceivably do that... EVEN IF you go off NIST's assumption that the building dropped about 5-6 floors of structural supports.

What we KNOW is that there were israelis who were caught celebrating the event, who turned out to be mossad agents tasked with "documenting the event".

What we KNOW is that the victims families asked a bunch of questions and only 3 out of 10 got answered... complex questions like 'did anyone get fired for their actions / inactions?' 'demoted?' and other questions that were reasonable investigatory questions up until 9-11.... follow the money is another key that seems to have been lost.

We KNOW that NORAD was running a series of terrorist related drills, some involving the hijackings of planes to be used as bombs... and a biological attack... all setting up on or scheduled for 9-11.

We KNOW that there was insider trading that went on concerning 9-11.

We KNOW that Bush's administration scripted a plan that involved a 'new pearl harbor' (which was the headline in no less then 8 newspapers on 9-12). The plan laid out was precisely what Bush's administration accomplished post-9-11.... and it was written before Bush was elected.

So, even what is known and accepted is damning regardless of the towers requiring explosive assistance to cause the structural damage that it did while maintaining the relatively high accelleration rate. Considering that 60% of free-fall is common in explosive controlled demolitions. Whereas verinage demolitions are typically 40% of free-fall (those that I've seen and measured)... which was most of the examples off of youtube)

See, the thing is that many people will look at all the evidence and then justify by saying 'oh that would take too many people so it can't be true', so you'll place it as 'conspiracy theory'...mostly because it's 'too evil'.

 

[CriticalThought]

A laser beam did it dude.

Prove me wrong.

I KNOW it.

 

[BmanMcfly]

A laser beam did it dude.

Prove me wrong.

I KNOW it.

In that case provide a source... evidence backing up your theory, I mean, in the last post every point is either backed up by MSM articles, NIST themselves, the 9-11 comission, and NORAD themselves.

The official story is little better then a clever hoax.