September 11, 2001 trading

[FuturesTrader71]

I couldn't edit my post (thanks to the new limit), but here is a little food for thought:

Here is an experiment you can do right now to replicate the kind of structure that the WTC had. Stand on an undamaged and empty soda can. Do so by stepping up on it with the weight of your foot completely distributed across the top. Now, have someone quickly flick the side of the can with their finger to put a tiny dent in it. They had better be quick or risk getting themselves crushed by your falling weight. The can, with a tiny dent in it, will not be able to stand up to your weight because the forces have shifted and exponentially exceeded the capacity of the can as a solid member. With the way the WTC was designed, you have a more complex but similar effect.

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from patoo:

1. Sounds like you are embracing it to me

2. if you throw an eggshell at a building fast enough, you can put a hole in the building...basic physics. Try jumping off a high bridge into water. It hurts. Same idea.

3. The towers were constructed differently than most skyscrapers. The architects never planned on a jetliners being aimed at the towers loaded with gasoline. Saw the program on A&E. I guess the architects and A & E were in on it too.

================

Eggactly i mean exactly;
saw a 1 !hour show on DISH TV on subject ,engineers made an excellent case thats exactly what you saw is what you got.

Remember the first silver AMR plane seemed like it could be an accident;
2nd silver AMR plane you KNEW it was not random

Emotionaly ........it was horrible;
tek wise market was in downtrnd , stupid terrorists helped downtrend .

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from FuturesTrader71:

I couldn't edit my post (thanks to the new limit), but here is a little food for thought:

Here is an experiment you can do right now to replicate the kind of structure that the WTC had. Stand on an undamaged and empty soda can. Do so by stepping up on it with the weight of your foot completely distributed across the top. Now, have someone quickly flick the side of the can with their finger to put a tiny dent in it. They had better be quick or risk getting themselves crushed by your falling weight. The can, with a tiny dent in it, will not be able to stand up to your weight because the forces have shifted and exponentially exceeded the capacity of the can as a solid member. With the way the WTC was designed, you have a more complex but similar effect.

==============
Add to that pancake smashed scenerio ,intentional full fuel tanks, , steel not engineered to stand crash- explosion of fully fueled AMR planes, you get the picture & more so.

And how many plane crashes end without fire/explosion;
not many.
My eod charts dont show 9-11 thru 9-16 exchange closings but it happened real close to market open.
Helpful illustration, Futurestrader71

 

[K-Rock]

There is a lot of skepticism to go around and some of it is warranted.

I heard a lot of weird rumors/reports during that long walk home from Manhattan to Brooklyn and some of it turned out to be true.

 

[hans37]

Quote from woody008:

Why does anyone even bother to help anyone here? I read the report from Underwriters Laboratories, the group reponsible for testing the steel and yes what he says is true about the 1000 degree less temp of the steel. How do you explain the 3rd world trade center building collapsing as well? No plane hit it. I guess it fell down from "fright." Aliens? I think there are more "aliens" here than area 51.

uh I'm no engineer but structures don't actually have to reach their melting point before they lose their load bearing capabilities.

btw several years ago there was a nationwide spree of arsons using jet fuel as an accelerant. The fires were so hot that water from the fire hoses actually fed the fire by splitting the molecules into hydrogen and oxygen.

 

[hans37]

Quote from jamis359:

I know it's not what you were asking about, but I will say we will never know what really happened on Sep't 11, 2001.

I do not embrace conspiracy theories but ...

okay everybody knows it was the mossed who blew up the buildings.
I know it was them because I actually got the email warning by mistake.
I'm not jewish but a friend of mine is. Early on monday morning while fueling my car. I overflowed my tank and got splashed with gasoline on my shirt. Being the good friend that he was when I went into his diamond/honey baked ham store, he loaned me his jacket. Unwittingly he did so forgetting his cell phone was in the pocket. When the message came I thought it was a joke.
I've never discussed it with him, as I didn't want to blow his cover as a peaceful man simultaneously exploiting both man and pig .






The truth is I got married on sept 11,2001: impeccable foreshadowing of things to come I would say.
It made the question of would you still love me if I were broke, go from rhetorical to literal.

 

[TorontoTrader2]

It's clear what happened physically, we all saw it.
I have a problem of the whitewash of the investigation. Actually there was no investigation. The steel was shipped off to china and anyone who challenges the "official" story that was suddenly hatched a few days later, is shouted down.

No question that someone gained financially from 9/11, hugely, Why else do it? I'm still waiting for someone/group to claim responsibility for this masterful precise attack. It took world class skills, planning, and intelligence operations to organize and perfectly execute it. Now how many ogranizations actually have that capability?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm - so where is the new investigation to find out who did it?

I'd also like know how someone's passport was found blocks away after that...
At the least someone is covering up the fact they blundered all previous warnings and intelligence, which allowed the attack to occur, possibly even inadvertantly..


I'd also like to know why WTC 7 was felled, asseen in a picture perfect controlled demolition captured by news cameras. I don't have an answer.

 

[hans37]

Quote from TorontoTrader2:

It's clear what happened physically, we all saw it.
I have a problem of the whitewash of the investigation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm - so where is the new investigation to find out who did it?

LOL, Do we have to reinvestigate who shot Lincoln for the same reason-- (you don't like the answer).

or have you conveniently forgotten obl admitted it was his handiwork?

 

[nkhoi]

check out second plane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmFu7OT0wZo

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from jamis359:
I do not embrace conspiracy theories

well.....

The physics and engineering do not add up

with all due respect, the wording of your post does not suggest that you are either a physicist or an engineer. In particular, I would expect a structural engineer who believed that the towers fell for some as yet undescribed reason to be giving us a lot more hard engineering, because...

I'm not going to speculate... what caused the demolition of the WTC after the airplanes struck

Actually, you may be obliged to do so, simply because of the evidence that exists. We have all seen the nauseating image of the portion of the first tower above the impact area tilting slightly and then falling onto the rest of the building. Is the theory that all the different video angles of that event that we have seen are all doctored? Is the theory that a bomb brought the buildings down? If so, was it placed at the impact zone? A bomb under the building wouldn't cause a collapse which originated at the impact zone, would it? There is no question that in both collapses, the floors above the impact zone fell 'onto' the rest of the building. It did not 'collapse in on itself'.

Re: the WTC building that was not hit but collapsed. Is it not reasonable to assume that as the unimaginable amount of debris from the collapse of the towers started to hit the ground, that it spread out like the ripples caused by throwing a stone into a pond? Is it difficult to believe that the foundations of any building in the vicinity would be chopped out from underneath it by this wave of debris? I remember clearly seeing some slow motion footage of a huge rockslide; it is clear in these cases that the mass of matter acquires all the characteristics of a liquid - it even looks like a liquid. It has turbulence and flows like a liquid. If this wave swept the bottom of the building away, it would collapse just like it would in a controlled demolition, wouldn't it? Remember, it's a wave of 'molten' steel and concrete.