Let's Face It We Were ALL Duped

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

How are you using the term massive bets to fail?

I would think sinking your money into a company you believe will increase your investment is betting the company will right itself?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

How are you using the term massive bets to fail?

I would think sinking your money into a company you believe will increase your investment is betting the company will right itself?

No, because the function of a put off is to auto sell at profit. It's useful in making money when a stock goes down, by taking more money out than you put in because of your starting share. It's a bet a stock will fail and some can even be set to sell in intervals. It helps sell at the 'peak point' before the fall.

a reply to: Informer1958

How does selling steel for recycling equate to debris were not thoroughly searched and 19,000 human remains recovered? Faulty disjointed logic!

You are one of the ones angry the WTC was not reconstructed like an airplane crash?

But you are going to act like the methodical hand search by dedicated law enforcement that recovered 19,000 individual pieces of human remains never took place? Just because it is a reality not conclusive to your narrative?

What are you? 5?

If law enforcement is so diabolical, corrupted, and incompetent, who do you call if a criminal breaks into your home? If you have a trespasser? The victim of road rage? See an impaired driver on the road?

m.youtube.com...#

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

m.youtube.com...#

m.youtube.com...#

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

How are you using the term massive bets to fail?

I would think sinking your money into a company you believe will increase your investment is betting the company will right itself?

No, because the function of a put off is to auto sell at profit. It's useful in making money when a stock goes down, by taking more money out than you put in because of your starting share. It's a bet a stock will fail and some can even be set to sell in intervals. It helps sell at the 'peak point' before the fall.

.

???????

The only way to make money from buying stock is to buy low and sell higher than what it was purchased for.

Take a program to watch stock and manage your accounts. You program it to buy stocks of x company at ten dollars. And set the program to sell at twenty dollars.

It has noting to do if a company fails!

If you sell the stock in a company for a profit, then you win.

If you sell stock for more than you paid, you lose money.

If you sell stock before a company fails and prevent the loss of everything you invested from being lost, that is called dodging a financial crisis bullet while playing the stock market.


There is no financial theory that states you selling stock you own in a company because you think it's going to fail equates the selling price is automatically higher than the purchase price initially used to acquire the stock!

a reply to: neutronflux

I'm talking about a stock order that executes if a stock goes down. What are you talking about? MMJ? '___'?

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

How does selling a stock just because it goes down equates profits?

The only way to make money from purchased stock is to sell it at a price higher than what you sell it for.

If you have insight to sell a stock you own in a company that you have been tipped off will fail, it just means you prevented losing everything you had invested with that company. Falling stock does not equate to automatic profit.

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

If you knew a company was going to absolutely fail, and take everything you have invested in that company, why would you wait for the price to drop?

You would sell all the stock as fast as possible for the most profit achievable!

a reply to: neutronflux

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????

Yes, in stocks, buying low and selling high is how you make money. This has truly become a 6th grade conversation.

There are multiple types of options in stocks you can execute. If you have ever seen a stock manipulated live, how do you expect to 'buy low' and 'sell high' if the stock is rapidly jumping up and down? What if tragically by the time you buy it, it is not the same price? Once you make your investment, do you sit by your computer all day until it's 'high' to sell? How do you buy a stock when it's low? Wouldn't everyone else be all over that before you?

Lucky, there are these 'options' where you can have automated purchase and selling of your stocks once certain parameters you designate trigger.

What is interesting about the 9/11 companies that were effected most specifically, in the building, is not that they had put options against them, that happens everyday and smart investors commonly use them. It's purely how many. It was not right in perspective.

They wanted to 'sell' when it was 'high' before it was 'low'. You know, buy low, sell high.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

If you knew a company was going to absolutely fail, and take everything you have invested in that company, why would you wait for the price to drop?

You would sell all the stock as fast as possible for the most profit achievable!

No, you would sell it at the peak of it's price height. Sell HIGH as in, the HIGHEST POINT.

A put option helps achieve selling AT THE HIGHEST POINT. It's AUTOMATED.

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

You can set sell points for different reasons.

Say you bought x stock at 10.00 dollars hoping it would double in a year or two. But can only afford to lose ten percent on the initial investment. A second selling point might be if the stock drops as low a 9 dollars to prevent you from losing your bottom and mitigate loss.

originally posted by: neutronflux
A second selling point might be if the stock drops as low a 9 dollars to prevent you from losing your bottom and mitigate loss.

zzz. That-is-called-a-put-option.

I can set a stock to sell if it ever goes down 30 cents period. It could rise all day to $11.60, and then drop to $11.29, and then my put option would sell it because it dropped too much to my liking. These options execute everyday, and this is common.

WHAT IS NOT COMMON: How many puts were -Created- just prior to the crash were unbelievable. The number actually executed is insanely high because the falling stock would trigger them like pingpong ball mouse traps.

a reply to: neutronflux

Your response is exactly what I expected. Furthermore you just demonstrated what I posted about, thank you.

I never said the law enforcement was corrupt, perhaps some are, yet you behave as if everything is black and white and no grey anywhere.

You are one of the ones angry the WTC was not reconstructed like an airplane crash?

You have no idea what angers me. So now you're an expert in Psychiatry and you're on here to give members who do not agree with you, false diagnosis in their ideology.

Your angy comment of me being 5 years old, amuses me.

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

What was not clear to me was were the money for the put came from. The put and call are the investment and the stock is the item.

To be crass and over simple, the purchaser of a put or call pays a premium ( places a bet) with a writer ( a stock bookie).

To be over simple still, the put is like placing a bet with a bookie a fighter will loose. If the fighter losses, the bookie pays out. If the fighter wins, the bookie keeps your money.

You buy a put, don't sell the stocks, so the writer ( bookie ) keeps the premium ( the bet)

If the stock drops to the bought price set point, the writer of the put is obligated to purchase the stock at the price.

www.investopedia.com...

Selling a put option - An investor would choose to sell a put option if her outlook on the underlying security was that it was going to rise. The purchaser of a put option pays a premium to the writer (seller) for the right to sell the shares at an agreed upon price in the event that the price heads lower. Since the premium would be kept by the seller if the price closed above the agreed upon strike price, it is easy to see why an investor would choose to use this type of strategy. (To learn more, see Introduction To Put Writing.)

Puts are still not really a bet something will fail. It's just another form of playing the stock market and making a bet with a writer because you think a stock will dip. The writer is betting you are wrong.

originally posted by: Informer1958

I never said the law enforcement was corrupt, perhaps some are, yet you behave as if everything is black and white and no grey anywhere.

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

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

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

All the hundreds of hours worked by numerous law enforcement personnel hand searching each pound of WTC debris three times is a lie?

The hand search for remains, DNA, and evidence is a lie?

The hard work by New York morgue personnel and DNA lab personnel to identify remains is a lie.

So all the law enforcement personnel, FBI, New York City Morgue Personnel, Lab Technicians, equipment operators, and support staff are lying about the logged time, the items recovered, and the efforts put forth to gather human remains, personnel effects, and evidence?

This is more about you ignoring which doesn't fit your dogmatic constructed reality.

a reply to: Informer1958

Still waiting on a logical and point for point argument how the contraction of floor trusses causing inward bowing of the WTC towers was not the mechanism of collapse?

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Bottom line?

You need to show the put potions were more about terrorists ties than the documented investing news letter recommending the American Airlines put options and the bad news released by American Airlines the days before 9/11.

Studies have shown investing news letters and the release of bad financial news concerning companies do influence and cause trading spikes.

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

They wanted to 'sell' when it was 'high' before it was 'low'. You know, buy low, sell high.

That is not actually odd. The other way to look at putt options is as stock insurance.

You pay 1,000 to 2,000 a year in home insurance for mitigating risk against fire. House burns down first year of paying the 2,000 gets you a new 100,000 dollar house. The insurance bets people pay more in than insurance pays out.

Say you bought stock low and now it is incredibly priced high. You want to keep the stock because it pays good dividends for example. But you want to mitigate the risk of a bearish market. You find a writer willing to agree to a put option. This gives you a certain amount of insurance you will be able to sell the stock no matter the condition of the stock market for profit.

Another example from: motley fool

www.fool.com...

Investors who bought shares of Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ) at the ouster of former CEO Carly Fiorina are sitting on some sweet gains over the past two years. And while they may believe that the company will continue to do well, perhaps, in the face of a potential economic slowdown, they're concerned about the company sliding with the rest of the market, and so buy a put option at the $40 strike to "protect" their gains. Buyers of the put have the right, until expiry, to sell their shares for $40. Sellers of the put have the obligation to purchase the shares for $40 (which could hurt, in the event that HP were to decline in price from here).

You have people upon reading the investment news letter advising the put options with the added motivation of released bad financial news buying put options and exercising investment mitigation?

Just playing the stock market goes up and down?

Again, it really has nothing to do with betting United Airlines was going to fail. Its about paying into a put option for acquiring an obligated buy to minigate risk.

When you pay into home owners insurance, are you betting your house will burn down?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

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

I am wrong cause you cannot prove anything!

What?

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

The WTC towers steel was insufficiently fire proofed. Fact!

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

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

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

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

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

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


As steel heats up, it expands !Fact!

www.fireengineering.com...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No sir, it's not proven. I understand that by your low standards and in your credulous mind it is proven, but not in real life.

You should avail yourself of the comments and statements of one Peter Ketcham, a mathematician employed by NIST.

The NIST report is sophistry, pure and simple. They avoid inconvenient facts and they invoke "national security" for secrecy. That may be good for you, but it is not for me.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

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

I am wrong cause you cannot prove anything!

What?

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

The WTC towers steel was insufficiently fire proofed. Fact!

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

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

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

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

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

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


As steel heats up, it expands !Fact!

www.fireengineering.com...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No sir, it's not proven. I understand that by your low standards and in your credulous mind it is proven, but not in real life.

You should avail yourself of the comments and statements of one Peter Ketcham, a mathematician employed by NIST.

The NIST report is sophistry, pure and simple. They avoid inconvenient facts and they invoke "national security" for secrecy. That may be good for you, but it is not for me.

Are you ready to proceed stepwise through the many arguments of the demolition conspiracy theorists?

I note that 'sophistry' is now the latest word of deflection. I will add that to 'opinion,' 'peer reviewed', 'pseudo-science', and 'pot-kettle' of Informer's standard responses.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

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

I am wrong cause you cannot prove anything!

What?

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

The WTC towers steel was insufficiently fire proofed. Fact!

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

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

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

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

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

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


As steel heats up, it expands !Fact!

www.fireengineering.com...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No sir, it's not proven. I understand that by your low standards and in your credulous mind it is proven, but not in real life.

You should avail yourself of the comments and statements of one Peter Ketcham, a mathematician employed by NIST.

The NIST report is sophistry, pure and simple. They avoid inconvenient facts and they invoke "national security" for secrecy. That may be good for you, but it is not for me.

Are you going to explain how the contraction of bowing floor tresses causing inward bowing was not the initiation of collapse?

Please explain the video of inward bowing and the immediate onset of collapse?
www.metabunk.org...