It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's Face It We Were ALL Duped

page: 14
53
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Let's face it pteridine you have "demonstrated" that you have bought the os narratives hook line and sinker.

This is what the OP is about.

I do not buy into the fake media and government CIA properganda of 911, good luck trying to convince people the os of 911 is true.




posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine



2500 degree temperatures for many hours? What is your source?


Wow! playing stupid are we?



Speak for yourself.

2500F is above the melting point of many steels. This is more A&E nonsense. They are playing stupid, too. On second thought, they are probably not playing.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

Let's face it pteridine you have "demonstrated" that you have bought the os narratives hook line and sinker.

This is what the OP is about.

I do not buy into the fake media and government CIA properganda of 911, good luck trying to convince people the os of 911 is true.


You don't really understand much of this, do you.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Can you even say at what temperature structural steel is rolled and pressed into beams, connections, and bolts?




en.m.wikipedia.org...

The forging temperature of an alloy will lie between the temperatures of its component metals. For most metals, forging temperature will be approximately 60% of the melting temperature in Kelvin



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


2500F is above the melting point of many steels. This is more A&E nonsense. They are playing stupid, too. On second thought, they are probably not playing.


No, it is not nonsense it is a proven fact, and you cannot debunk it, if so you would already have done so, by providing the ATS community the credible undisputable science. See how that works?
edit on 31-1-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Can you even say at what temperature structural steel is rolled and pressed into beams, connections, and bolts?


Can you even say at what temperature structural steel is rolled and pressed into beams, connections, and bolts on the WTC?

See how that works?
edit on 31-1-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine


2500F is above the melting point of many steels. This is more A&E nonsense. They are playing stupid, too. On second thought, they are probably not playing.


No, it is not nonsense it is a proven fact, and you cannot debunk it, if so you would already have done so, by providing the ATS community the credible undisputable science. See how that works?


It is far from a proven fact. It is wrong. What do you expect from the A&E? Credible undisputable science?

en.wikipedia.org... "The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1,130 °C (2,070 °F). Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F). 'Steel' with more than 2.1% Carbon is no longer Steel, but is known as Cast iron"



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


It is far from a proven fact


Again more "opinions," nothing substantial to back up your "opinions"

Wikipedia as a 9/11 disinformation op

jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...

Another Wikipedia Troll Caught Editing Quotes To Smear 9/11 Truth

www.prisonplanet.com...

Systematic bias against 9/11 Truth Movement on Wikipedia

911blogger.com...

Disinformation on the Web: Impact, Characteristics, and
Detection of Wikipedia Hoaxes


cs.stanford.edu...

Your sources is not credible, Wikipedia cannot be trusted, it has the credibility of The National Enquirer and fake News.

See how that works?
edit on 31-1-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine


It is far from a proven fact


Again more "opinions," nothing substantial to back up your "opinions"

Wikipedia as a 9/11 disinformation op

jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...

Another Wikipedia Troll Caught Editing Quotes To Smear 9/11 Truth

www.prisonplanet.com...

Systematic bias against 9/11 Truth Movement on Wikipedia

911blogger.com...

Disinformation on the Web: Impact, Characteristics, and
Detection of Wikipedia Hoaxes


cs.stanford.edu...

Your sources is not credible, Wikipedia cannot be trusted, it has the credibility of The National Enquirer and fake News.

See how that works?


Well, Informer, provide the correct data from a source that is credible. You haven't shown where the steel was tested for hours at 2500F so as of now, that is not a credible statement.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine


2500F is above the melting point of many steels. This is more A&E nonsense. They are playing stupid, too. On second thought, they are probably not playing.


No, it is not nonsense it is a proven fact, and you cannot debunk it, if so you would already have done so, by providing the ATS community the credible undisputable science. See how that works?


Yeap, you just proved you ignored a given answer. You just proved you would rather remind ignorant than research all sides of an issue.

Structural steel is forged into columns, floor connections, and bolts at 60 percent of its melting temperature. You can shape structural steel at lower temperatures, but you have to replace equipment more frequently.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux


Ok, what stocks by whom?



You still seem to miss the whole point.

It's generally recorded when people buy/sell stock.

Whomever bought stock predicting 9/11 companies to fail is anonymous because of a 'data failure' by the CBOE.

The only fact that IS known is many bets were placed and people became rich. If ANYONE knew who, that would be a lead.

The point is you can agree to disagree if you want, but the data coverup is a conspiracy. You keep asking the obvious question of who, that's the ONLY actual question.

The way you talk about stocks and portfolio's suggests you have never even heard of a put option. You want to learn what that is before you make too many points derailing the idea.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine
How often are these bets made? Don't people do this daily?


Yes. The 'put off record' for many said companies was reached the same day, prior to crashes. They are made everyday, not always in record mass prior to a major payout though.


originally posted by: pteridine
This could be part of a conspiracy or random noise. Data failure could be real or could be a cover. Would it be possible that those who planned the attacks made the bets and others followed along, not knowing why?


No, 'following' put options in stocks doesn't exist as a general idea. That data isn't normally kept available in real time. It is possible the attackers made their own put options.


originally posted by: pteridine
If that were the case, having a data failure after the fact would protect them from suspicion. This is probably not inside trading but would falsely imply that those who blindly made the bets were part of the conspiracy. A data erasure would solve the problem of confusing greed with terrorism.

Maybe.


originally posted by: pteridine
Possibly, there was also a cover to protect those who made the bets but didn't really know why.


Less likely. People that deal with stocks are known for being heavy in the know with their decisions, and less sheep than anyone. To keep it in perspective, these record breaking put offs are in the thousands of bets, but there are Millions of citizens. It's just thousands of bets that also happen to be record breaking. And not by a little. Puts are also slightly more complicated, as evidence of this discussion; people that use them are less likely to be 'sheep newbies'. It's better to just look at it methodically, and say that statistically because it's thousands, there must be someone ignorant. To call it a trend would be false imo.

By that same logic, because there were so many records broken, and so many bets, it's logical to assume SOMEONE knew planes were going to hit buildings. The failure in this idea is that person wasn't caught by our financial system, and profited. Instead, the financial system swept their tracks. Authorities asked for the data. People could have been caught.
edit on 31-1-2017 by ROBOTNINJADRAGON because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Theoretically, many could have had knowledge that "something" would cause a fluctuation in airline stocks without knowing what that something really was. A false rumor would cause many to bet and cover those who really knew. Data loss after the fact arranged by the followers to protect themselves would protect the identities of all including those who really knew what would happen.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

That second part is disingenuous and illegal. Even if planes didn't hit buildings.

And is definitely insider trading.

Identity is a crucial part of the integrity of stock trade. Just as you cannot falsely use several thousand accounts as yourself to make bets, you cannot be anonymous.


"Insider trading" verses an anonymous source is already a mute point. To have an insider, you must have an identity.

Yes, it could have spun off a rumor. The evidence goes against this with the data failure, but it's possible.
edit on 31-1-2017 by ROBOTNINJADRAGON because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

My point is it is record.

It comes down simply to this. Please cite what stocks were bought. Who authorized the capital to buy the stocks. When were the stocks bought. By which managers and under which investment strategies. When were the stocks sold to create profits?

Are you confusing buy and selling stocks for profit vs buying up stocks for a forced takeover.

There is no way anybody can buy stock at a high price before a dip then sale that stock off after a company fails for profit?

So please define how they made money?

Did I know the stock market would crash? I was putting money into my 401k before and during the crash. It took a big hit, but buying all that stock while the market was down helped. The 401k increased significantly because the stocks went down, I bought low, and the companies I was buying into didn't fold. I made the bet the stock market would come back, and it did.

Are you confusing conspiracy with long term investment that over time the stock market always increases in value.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
a reply to: pteridine

That second part is disingenuous and illegal. Even if planes didn't hit buildings.

And is definitely insider trading.

Identity is a crucial part of the integrity of stock trade. Just as you cannot falsely use several thousand accounts as yourself to make bets, you cannot be anonymous.


"Insider trading" verses an anonymous source is already a mute point. To have an insider, you must have an identity.

Yes, it could have spun off a rumor. The evidence goes against this with the data failure, but it's possible.


As we are speculating, I am saying that the data 'failure' was a way for the perpetrators to hide everything and cash in to fund further terror attacks. By spreading a rumor about money to be made, they managed to get many players confusing the situation. The players then realized that they had been played and had to hide their participation by a data 'failure.'

As to a demolition, there is no evidence, nor is there a need for a demolition. Had the buildings remained standing in an unstable condition, the effect would have been the same on the stocks.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

You do understand that financial institutions use isolated, of site, and disaster proof data backup?
It's required for IRS purposes?


And if enough data was lost to track who bought stocks when, what records are there now to prove who owns the stocks.

So you are saying all recordeds regarding capital gains, dividend payments, bank records tracking stock purchases and money transfers, all stock purchase recites, required IRS documents, individual records of companies and managed funds, and individual companies allocations and records to buy specific stocks were lost?
edit on 31-1-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that

edit on 31-1-2017 by neutronflux because: Added off site



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 06:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

You do understand that financial institutions use isolated, of site, and disaster proof data backup?
It's required for IRS purposes?

They why did they tell investigators the data was lost?



originally posted by: neutronflux
And if enough data was lost to track who bought stocks when, what records are there now to prove who owns the stocks.

So you are saying all recordeds regarding capital gains, dividend payments, bank records tracking stock purchases and money transfers, all stock purchase recites, required IRS documents, individual records of companies and managed funds, and individual companies allocations and records to buy specific stocks were lost?


You trying to exemplify this detail to falsify what I'm saying is difficult to understand. There is information of this on the internet, or you could give an example.

Not everyone was removed from note.

Under consideration here is the fact that Alex Brown, a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank (where many of the alleged 9/11 hijackers handled their banking transactions – for example Mohammed Atta) traded massive put options purchases on United Airlines Company UAL through the Chicago Board Option Exchange (CBOE) – “to the embarrassment of investigators”, as British newspaper The Independent reported.
www.free21.org...


There are even numerous options that were never claimed. A degree of guilt.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

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

You have evidence that a stock company bought stock?



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON




www.911myths.com...

Title: Pit Options

The story...

There was very high trading in "put options" on American Airline and United Airlines, immediately before 9/11. These were effectively gambles that their share prices would fall, which of course is what happened once the attacks took place. This shows the traders must have had advance knowledge of 9/11.

Our take...

This is a complex story, but the claims don’t always match the reality.

Although there were high volumes traded on these days, for instance, they weren’t as exceptionally high as some sites like to claim. Here’s one analysis.

There were very good reasons to sell American Airlines shares, too, as they’d just announced a string of bad news. Read more here.

United Airlines stocks were falling in price, too. If investors anticipated they were about to release bad results then their put options would also be worth buying (although keep in mind that the UAL put volumes weren’t the highest in the year anyway). Here’s our thoughts.

Some point to stories like the “unclaimed millions” from UAL puts as having a sinister explanation, but we disagree. Here’s why.

There was plenty of talk about potential insider dealings in other stocks, too. We haven’t researched these in any depth, but it’s worth pointing out that some people believe the claims were overblown.



Oh my gosh. The trading your are making a big deal about wasn't even the highest trading volume of the year.

So, you have investors that could not take a big hit dumping stocks on bad news to cover their financial bottoms.

And you have large financial institutions buying up cheap stock, who could take a short term loss and go for a long term gain

One: if all the data was lost, then how does anyone have evidence of insider trading to make allegations? How did they have records of the trading volume? Lost data does not mean they didn't have the data backed up to implement system restoration.

Two: when was the stock sold off for profit?

edit on 1-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed tens of list and included reference to quoted material



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join