De grote 9/11 topic

[Johan Bollen]

Ook geen woord over het Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism:

Among the reports about suspected insider trading which are mentioned in Crossing the Rubicon/From the Wilderness is a list that was published under the heading "Black Tuesday: The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?" by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism on September 21, 2001:
Between September 6 and 7, the CBOE saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million.
On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance; again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent "insiders", they would represent a gain of about $4 million.
[The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.]
No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co, which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley's share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million.
Merrill Lynch & Co, with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day (a 1200% increase). When trading resumed, Merrill's shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by "insiders", their profit would have been about $5.5 million.
European regulators are examining trades in Germany's Munich Re, Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. (Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock, making the attacks a "double whammy" for them.)

Enz... lees link eerder gegeven.

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Johan Bollen

Geen woord over PROMIS (Prosecutor's Management Information System) in die zogezegde mythe ontmantelingssite ivm de put-options. Eigenaardig.

nog eens de market was al maanden in vrije val link niet gelezen

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

nog eens de market was al maanden in vrije val link niet gelezen

Dat ziet ge duidelijk aan de koersval van de 2 luchtvaartmaatschappijen ... een zachte landing dat ze zeggen ...

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door eti1777

hij beschrijft hier, tot 2 maal toe, wat alleen kan geïnterpreteerd worden als een CD, niet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4AcO...ailpage#t=294s

Zeker niet!

Eerst beschreef hij de plane impact explosion, en daarna het bezwijken van de boutverbindingen over meerdere verdiepingen.
Als we hem vragen "was het een controlled demolition ? "Wat zal hij dan zeggen ?

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door eti1777

hij beschrijft hier, tot 2 maal toe, wat alleen kan geïnterpreteerd worden als een CD, niet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4AcO...ailpage#t=294s

Idd, een brandje honderden meters hoger kan die getimede explosies niet veroorzaken.

Daarbij is er duidelijk prominente voorkennis dat de aanslagen enkel met die 2 luchtvaartmaatschappijen de eerstvolgende beursdagen zouden plaatsvinden.

[eti1777]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Zeker niet!

Eerst beschreef hij de plane impact explosion, en daarna het bezwijken van de boutverbindingen over meerdere verdiepingen.

boutverbindingen die bezwijken op 20 verdiepingen lang (like 'firecrackers)? zo'n 20 verdiepingen onder de brand? gezien vanop de grond? met zijn expliciete gebarentaal? really?

Als we hem vragen "was het een controlled demolition ? "Wat zal hij dan zeggen ?

Wel, gezien wat hij hier zegt denk ik dat hij vrijwel overtuigd is dat de instorting het resultaat is van 'bombs'.

[atmosphere]

Het is nagenoeg hetzelfde verhaal als wat die brandweerlieden vertelden "floor by floor , boom, boom , boom" as if they planned to take down the building"

Ook zij denken niet dat er explosieven gebruikt werden.

Waren er wel explosieven gebruikt om die grote kolommen door te snijden dan was heel Manhatten getuige geweest!

[eti1777]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Het is nagenoeg hetzelfde verhaal als wat die brandweerlieden vertelden "floor by floor , boom, boom , boom" as if they planned to take down the building"

Ook zij denken niet dat er explosieven gebruikt werden.

Denken zij dan dat het de bouten waren die bezweken?

Waren er wel explosieven gebruikt om die grote kolommen door te snijden dan was heel Manhatten getuige geweest!

Ja, en moest er een derde gebouw van 47 verdiepingen bijna loodrecht ingestort zijn, had heel de wereld daar getuige van geweest, nochtans moesten er geen videos van bestaan...

"Absence of proof" als "proof of absence".

Die man ziet duidelijk explosies (hij zegt 'bombs went of'), zoals die voorkomen bij een CD(en hij is zeker niet de enige), zo'n 20 verdiepingen onder de brand en dat uitleggen door springende bouten is belachelijk, sorry.

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Het is nagenoeg hetzelfde verhaal als wat die brandweerlieden vertelden "floor by floor , boom, boom , boom" as if they planned to take down the building"

Ook zij denken niet dat er explosieven gebruikt werden.
Waren er wel explosieven gebruikt om die grote kolommen door te snijden dan was heel Manhatten getuige geweest!

just ... 'zij" ... juist

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Het is nagenoeg hetzelfde verhaal als wat die brandweerlieden vertelden "floor by floor , boom, boom , boom" as if they planned to take down the building"

Ook zij denken niet dat er explosieven gebruikt werden.

Waren er wel explosieven gebruikt om die grote kolommen door te snijden dan was heel Manhatten getuige geweest!

nu heel Manhatten was getuige evenwel niet van de explosieven daar is NIETS van gevonden

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Het is nagenoeg hetzelfde verhaal als wat die brandweerlieden vertelden "floor by floor , boom, boom , boom" as if they planned to take down the building"

Ook zij denken niet dat er explosieven gebruikt werden.

Waren er wel explosieven gebruikt om die grote kolommen door te snijden dan was heel Manhatten getuige geweest!

Juist, en de snelheid waarmee de drie torens zijn naar beneden gekomen is totaal onbelangrijk

[Zwitser]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gun

Juist, en de snelheid waarmee de drie torens zijn naar beneden gekomen is totaal onbelangrijk

Oh, de snelheid waarmee de torens naar beneden gekomen zijn is juist wel belangrijk. Troofers beweren namelijk graag dat de torens "in vrije val" naar beneden gekomen zijn, en dat is nu net een van hun argumenten die triviaal te ontkrachten is.

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Zwitser

Oh, de snelheid waarmee de torens naar beneden gekomen zijn is juist wel belangrijk. Troofers beweren namelijk graag dat de torens "in vrije val" naar beneden gekomen zijn, en dat is nu net een van hun argumenten die triviaal te ontkrachten is.

Triviaal wordt dus bekrachtigd dat de drie torens met duidelijke weerstand van onderliggende verdiepingen naar beneden komen ...

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gun

Juist, en de snelheid waarmee de drie torens zijn naar beneden gekomen is totaal onbelangrijk

U wil zeggen dat gebouwen die met explosieven worden neergehaald altijd in vrije val neerkomen ??

Niet dus, ook daar heb je te maken met weerstand van de structuur.
Bij de torens was dit ook het geval.

Nu komt er iemand met "NIST admits freefall"

En dan zeg ik, klopt voor de kolommen die buiten de torens om naar beneden vallen. De totale instortingstijd is veel langer.

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

U wil zeggen dat gebouwen die met explosieven worden neergehaald altijd in vrije val neerkomen ??

Niet dus, ook daar heb je te maken met weerstand van de structuur.
Bij de torens was dit ook het geval.

Nu komt er iemand met "NIST admits freefall"

En dan zeg ik, klopt voor de kolommen die buiten de torens om naar beneden vallen. De totale instortingstijd is veel langer.

opzet geslaagd ... Je spreekt jezelf tegen ... maar daarmee vertel ik waarschijnlijk niets nieuws

[Micele]

De Zwitser met zijn desinfo weer...
Toch wel heel duidelijk dat gij geen enkel onderzoek leest met jouw vooroordelen en jouw "gratis woordje troofers".

6,31 m/sec² van ae911truth.org, en andere, is redelijk verwijderd van 9,81 m/sec² niet ?
m.a.w 64% of the acceleration of gravity

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-se...xplosives.html
Lack of Deceleration of North Tower’s Upper Section Proves Use of Explosives
Written by Tony Szamboti Monday, 08 November 2010 11:46

Dynamic loading was postulated in a paper used in the NIST report on the WTC collapses, written by Dr. Zdenek Bazant of Northwestern University. However, Dr. Bazant had not performed any actual measurements to support his theory.

Actual measurements of the descent of WTC 1 were performed independently in 2008 by physics instructor David Chandler of Fresno, California, and Professor Graeme MacQueen of Hamilton, Ontario. Both found no evidence of deceleration at any time during the descent. In fact the upper section of WTC 1 continuously accelerated, at approximately 2/3 of g (free-fall) during the first several seconds of the building’s “collapse.”

The contradiction caused by the lack of deceleration of the upper section of WTC 1 with the dynamic loading event postulated, but never measured, by Dr. Bazant or NIST, is discussed in a published paper entitled “The Missing Jolt,” which can be found online at the Journal of 9/11 Studies and in the Technical Articles section of the AE911Truth website.

Proof that the necessary deceleration is observable in a collapse in which the momentum and kinetic energy of an upper section break the columns in the lower section is found in the demolition of several buildings in France. In recent years demolition engineers there have devised a system known as the Verinage technique, where they demolish buildings without the use of explosives. This technique uses hydraulic rams to break all of the columns in a couple of stories near the center of the building. The loss of vertical support in these stories then causes the upper section to fall unimpeded through a pre-determined distance before impacting the intact lower structure. Watch this video of one of these demolitions – of the Balzac-Vitry building.

In all known measurements of these “Verinage” demolitions, the descent of the roofline shows definitive proof of deceleration of the upper building sections as they impact the lower structure, as seen in the velocity graph of the Balzac-Vitry building demolition below.

Now compare the above velocity graph of the Balzac-Vitry demolition to the velocity graph of the WTC 1 “collapse.”



The same measurement methodology is used in both cases.

There is obviously no deceleration in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1. A “natural” collapse (without the use of explosives) could not have occurred without it. Therefore, this verified scientific data proves that explosives must have been employed to remove the structural columns – and thus to bring down the World Trade Center North Tower.

It stands to reason that if the North Tower was brought down surreptitiously with explosives, then the South Tower must have been as well. Its destruction was similarly explosive, rapid, and thorough, though with a few differences in the features of its destruction.

Some excellent video footage shows experiments and provides additional discussion on why the lack of deceleration by WTC 1’s upper section could not have been caused by simple overload of columns – even though several may have been “cut” by the jetliner impact and others weakened by the ensuing fires. Professional engineer Jonathan Cole and David Chandler have recently produced several brief but cogent videos on the subject:

9/11 Experiments: Collapse vs. Demolition ~ Part 1 of 2

9/11 Experiments: Collapse vs. Demolition ~ Part 2 of 2

9/11 Experiments: Newton vs. NIST

What a Gravity-Driven Demolition Looks Like

ook:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...tionOfWTC1.pdf
Journal of 9/11 Studies - Feb 2010
page 8 tot 14


Figure 2: Velocity is here plotted as a function of time for the roof line of WTC1. The regression line is computed for the 6th computed velocity onward. The slope, in this context, is the acceleration: -6.31 m/s2 with an R2 value of 0.997.

Observations
For the current analysis we follow Bazănt's simplifying assumptions [4, 5, 6, 7] by treating the upper section of the building as a solid block with mass m. The only two relevant forces acting on the falling block are gravity (mg) and an upward normal force (N) due to its interaction with the lower section of
the building. Applying Newton's Second Law and solving for N, we get
mg − N = ma so N = mg −ma (3)

Our data shows that from the sixth computed velocity data point onward, the upper block is accelerating uniformly (with an R2 value of 0.997) at a = -6.31 m/s2, or in other words, 64% of the acceleration of gravity. For this value of a, N = mg − 0.64mg = 0.36mg

Therefore the upward-acting normal force is 36% of the weight of the upper block, as illustrated in Figure 3.
| |
Figure 3: Consider the upper section of the building to be a block of weight mg. Since the acceleration of the block is measured to be downward at 0.64g, the net force acting on it must be 0.64mg. The gravitational force is mg, so the upward normal force must be 0.36mg. The upper and lower sections of the building exert equal but opposite forces on each other, so the load on the lower section of the building is 36% of the weight of the upper block.

Explicitly invoking Newton's Third Law puts this result in another light.
Since the forces in the interaction are equal and opposite, the falling block exerts a force of only 36% of its weight on the lower section of the building. In other words, as long as the falling block is accelerating downward we have the counter-intuitive result that the force it exerts on the lower section of the building is significantly less than its static weight. It is difficult to imagine how an upper block exerting a force of only 36% of its static weight could crush the larger, stronger, undamaged lower section of the building to the ground, when the building, at any level, was designed to support several times the weight above it.
Assuming a safety factor of between 3 and 5 [12], the observed acceleration implies that close to 90% of the strength of the lower section of the building must have been eliminated by forces other than the supposed "pile driver," suggesting that some sort of controlled demolition was at work.

One might argue, in terms of the strength of the various elements, that the impact of the falling block might crush the lower section of the building (although this assertion has been challenged [13]), but it cannot crush the lower block while it maintains its downward acceleration. Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti have made a parallel observation, based on a similar measurement, in their paper, "The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST--Bazănt Collapse Hypothesis."[14] They point out that any increased force on the lower section of the building must be accompanied by a decrease in the momentum of the falling block.

The transfer of momentum (which implies a loss of momentum for the upper block) is what gives rise to the impulse. The falling block can lose momentum only to the extent that it decelerates. It should therefore experience a "jolt" which we should be able to see in the video analysis.
But from the fact that the upper block continues to move downward without deceleration, it is clear that there was no jolt despite the significant deformation of the building in the first three seconds.
The fact that a downward accelerating block would exert a force less than its own weight on the target block may be difficult to accept intuitively, but that is because our experience suggests the target block would resist the crushing blow. A rapidly moving hammer head driving a nail into a solid block of wood typically exerts a force on the nail many times the weight of the hammer head. But that is true only if the nail resists the blow. The large force that drives the nail into the wood is matched by a force that simultaneously decelerates the hammer head, which is why multiple blows are typically required.
If, however, the nail is placed on a block of Styrofoam it will not significantly resist the blow. It will be driven into the block with very little force. The falling hammer head will meet so little resistance that it will be able to accelerate the whole time. In the case of WTC1, the falling block acts like the hammer head driving the nail into Styrofoam, but, changing the picture a little, it is the interface between the two blocks that is "soft." Something other than the falling block (explosives?) must be destroying the structural integrity of the interface zone so that it offers only a small fraction of the resistance it was designed to provide.

Some might object to oversimplifying the model quite this much. It has been argued that the crushed material at the interface of destruction is accreted to the upper section so the mass of the falling block grows as it falls, producing an avalanche effect.[15] I would argue, from the fact that a major fraction of the mass landed outside the footprint of the building, that accretion was at most partial, but let us consider the effect of any such accretion. Newton's Second Law applied to a system of variable mass
can be stated ....] en een hoop formules.... ]

where p is momentum and Fext represents the net external force acting on the system. The accreted mass is initially at rest, so it brings no new momentum into the system:
[... idem formules ganse p 12 en begin 13 ]
....]

Therefore, perhaps counter-intuitively, any accreted material reduces the effectiveness of an assumed pile driver. This result may become reasonably intuitive once one recognizes that the falling block must transfer some of its momentum to the accreted mass to bring it up to speed.

Summary

The fact that the roof line of the upper section of the North Tower continued to accelerate downward through the collision with the lower section of the building indicates that the upper section could not have been acting as a pile driver. As long as the roof line was accelerating downward, the upper block, exerted a force less than its own static weight on the lower section of the building. Any accretion of material into the upper block would have acted as an inertial brake, reducing the force of interaction even further. The undamaged lower section of the building was built to support several times the weight of the material above it, but whether or not we take the safety factor into account, the reduced force exerted by the falling mass could not have been what caused the violent destruction of the building seen in numerous videos. The persistent acceleration of the top section of the building is strong confirmation that some other source of energy was used to remove the structure below it, allowing the upper block to fall with little resistance.
Having assumed the existence of an indestructible falling block, with or without accretion, we have demonstrated that, given the observed acceleration, such a block could not possibly have destroyed the lower section of the building. When we turn to the video evidence we see that even the hypothesized existence of a persistent upper block is a fiction.
Videos show that the section of the building above the plane impact point was the first section to disintegrate. It was significantly reduced in size prior to the onset of destruction of the lower section of the building. Once the roof line descends into the debris cloud there is no further evidence even of its continued existence. Whether or not it was completely destroyed early in the collapse is a moot point. We have shown that even if it continued to exist intact, it could not have played a significant role in the destruction of the building.
A small section of a structure, consisting of a few floors, cannot one-way crush-down a significantly larger lower section of same structure by gravity alone.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express appreciation to the volunteer staff of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and others in the broader 9/11 Truth community who provided encouragement and critical discussion for this paper. Also I appreciate the correspondence with Charles M. Beck, who led me to think through the implications of accretion for this analysis.
....

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Zwitser

Oh, de snelheid waarmee de torens naar beneden gekomen zijn is juist wel belangrijk. Troofers beweren namelijk graag dat de torens "in vrije val" naar beneden gekomen zijn, en dat is nu net een van hun argumenten die triviaal te ontkrachten is.

beginnen ze terug over de 'free falll' te belachelijk voor woorden de Troofers...

[eti1777]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

U wil zeggen dat gebouwen die met explosieven worden neergehaald altijd in vrije val neerkomen ??

Niet dus, ook daar heb je te maken met weerstand van de structuur.
Bij de torens was dit ook het geval.

Nu komt er iemand met "NIST admits freefall"

En dan zeg ik, klopt voor de kolommen die buiten de torens om naar beneden vallen. De totale instortingstijd is veel langer.

Hoe weet je of de instorting van de penthouse en de volledige instorting van WTC 7 kan aanzien worden als één enkel evenement?

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door eti1777

Denken zij dan dat het de bouten waren die bezweken?

Ik kom niet met zogenaamde getuigen van brekende bouten aan zetten.

Ja, en moest er een derde gebouw van 47 verdiepingen bijna loodrecht ingestort zijn, had heel de wereld daar getuige van geweest, nochtans moesten er geen videos van bestaan...

Ik heb er toch gezien !

"Absence of proof" als "proof of absence".

Die man ziet duidelijk explosies (hij zegt 'bombs went of'), zoals die voorkomen bij een CD(en hij is zeker niet de enige), zo'n 20 verdiepingen onder de brand en dat uitleggen door springende bouten is belachelijk, sorry.

Op het moment dat de structuur bovenin begint in te storten krijgen de verticale kolommen over de volle lengte grote krachten te verwerken, is vrij logisch.

Wat u echter even vergeet is het feit de de torens al 10 minuten(of nog eerder ) zichtbaar aan het doorhellen waren. Duidelijke voortekenen van naderende instorting.

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

De Zwitser met zijn desinfo weer...
Toch wel heel duidelijk dat gij geen enkel onderzoek leest met jouw vooroordelen en jouw "gratis woordje troofers".

6,31 m/sec² van ae911truth.org, en andere, is redelijk verwijderd van 9,81 m/sec² niet ?
m.a.w 64% of the acceleration of gravity


ook:

Onderzoekers die de plane impacts negeren , negeer ik.
freefall is echt crap , zelfs bij controlled demolitions.
Pak een stopwatch en kijk hoe lang de collapses duurde(en niet de tijd die het puin buitenom er over deed om de grond te raken)