I have not read the 911 report; I have read several summaries of
their findings. I have been more interested in the technical
work of the NTSB and have read their reports. The NTSB
investigators and other professional commentators are the
source of my understandings. I do not claim to be the
original thinker, but my study of the work of others convinces me
that my eyes did not lie. Two planes destroyed the
buildings.
As a one time pilot, I have long followed aviation and have
looked at its glories and its tragedies. I think if you look
at the record of fires which destroy commercial aircraft, you will
find that few people are killed by the
initial explosion. Instead, the initial explosion is
followed by fuel pouring into the cabin and then the people
die in the fire which follows. Aviation fuel is generally not
all consumed in a single merciful explosion. The few who have
survived such events tell of seeing the fuel run down the aisle
followed by the fire.
I don't believe any sky scraper anywhere could withstand a hit
from a commercial jet loaded with fuel. If you check it out,
people are pretty sure that even nuclear reactor containment
buildings are not able to withstand such a strike.
Obviously, the towers were not designed as bunkers. They
had steel girder construction and the steel was destroyed by fire
just as the steel in the Madrid building was destroyed by fire.
Remember, the towers were built to serve as offices, not as bomb
shelters. Fires destroyed many ships in World War II -
despite the fact they were designed for combat. Not all of
them were destroyed by under water holes in the hull. The
steel structures failed in the heat of the fires due to expansion
and contraction. Think of what happened to the Japanese
carriers at Midway which had planes loaded with fuel on their
decks. A bomb or two started the planes on fire, and the
fire completed the destruction.
A fire chief once told me there is no such thing as a fire proof
safe. A safe might be designed to withstand some fires,
but no safe can withstand all possible fires in a normal
building. I am sure that to design a building which could
withstand such an attack would leave you with an
underground reinforced concrete bunker.
I am also sure I will not be able to persuade someone who does
not believe the evidence and the logic of the arguments made so
far. The cameras of the world showed the
cause. Obviously, the towers were not made to
withstand a hit from the large jets which destroyed them. If
anyone once thought they would withstand such a strike, they
were wrong.
By the way, what other explanation could there possibly be?
In order to be merciful to those on the site who wish only to
study the markets, I will bow out of this particular line of
discussion. I love these debates but I think it drives some
people to distraction if they go on too long. While I hope to
make no additional posts, I will certainly read any further
comments you may have.
By the way, I tried sending an earlier version of this post, but
I haven't seen it on the blog. If it shows up on the blog in
addition to this post, I apologize for the repetition.
Matt, I think you have it right. If the banks don't
feel safe lending, no inflation of general prices. It is
possible for equities to rise though because the Fed can loan to
Goldman and other companies which invest in the market.
A huge load of aviation fuel is all you needed. Why is Jet
A used as fuel? Because it carries a great deal of
energy. You could burn buildings down to destroy them,
but the risk is too great. Most people who die in a fire do
not die of burns. Most die of fume inhalation. We don't
burn old hotels because of the toxic fumes and the risk of a fire
spreading to other structures.
No, the Jet A fuel did not all disappear in the initial
explosion. Another reason Jet A is used is that you can burn
it in a controlled manner without risking an explosion (when used
normally!). Thousands of gallons survived the initial
eplosion and traveled down stair wells and elevator shafts (liquids
always find the low spots; just check may basement after a 200 year
rain). Thus the fire was able to get at too much of the
girders for the structure to survive.
There was a fire in Madrid where a sky scraper burned.
Part of the structure survived because of massive reinforced
concrete. The top part of the structure did not have
reinforced concrete and the steel structure in this areas was
utterly destroyed; where there was not support from reinforced
concrete, the steel deformed and the structure failed. Here
is a link with more info:
http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm
The twin towers did not have significant amounts of reinforced
concrete.
When I said end of story, I didn't mean my opinion was
final. I meant the fuel fire was sufficient cause to end
the story of the twin towers.
Folks, unless someone here suggests that Hurricane Katrina was
caused by the CIA, I don't plan to make any more posts about these
theories that we Americans must have destroyed our own citizens
because surely noone else could have.
The World Trade Center collapsed because the steel expanded and
contracted with the horrific changes in temperature. Melting
was not required. Many piles of twisted steel are left behind
when industrial buildings burn. They didn't melt, but they do
snap their rivets and beam to beam joints when they expand beyond
the structural integrity of the design. Just ask any urban
fireman.
A general who commanded the SR71 spy plane squadron in Europe
told me that the heat generated by the friction of the plane
passing at Mach 3+ through the thin air above 80,000 feet
is so intense that the wing span expands in excess of six
feet. He said the miracle was that the plane's material was
not destroyed by the expansion and contraction.
Steel expands with the intense heat of a massive aviation fuel
fire. Expansion destroys the junctions where the beams are
joined together. End of story.
Of course I would always opt for the vaccine if the disease is a
real threat. A few have suffered from vaccines. But
hundreds of millions have been saved from horrible illnesses.
It is simple fact. I am not in the health care industry, but
I remember what it was like before the vaccines. I have
friends who were infected with polio before the vaccine was
available; I have no friends who contracted it after receiving the
vaccine. Just ask my friends who contracted polio
whether they would take the vaccine if they could turn the clock
back. It won't be an issue. Believe me. It won't
be an issue for those who know the disease first hand.
The paramater I wish to set is which view opens when I go to the
blog. Right now it always opens "View all" but it doesn't
open in the "View All - Recent" view. I would like to have a
way to set a parameter so that it always opens in the Recent
view. Sometimes I go back from viewing a chart in the blog,
and I lose the recent view setting. It is a small matter, but
I think a lot of us would prefer to be able to choose the default
manner of organizing our view of the blog. So, if it isn't
hard to make that possible, it might be a popular feature. By
the way, I can't find such an option in the current profile
section. If it is there, maybe one day I'll find it.
Could you consider allowing each member to choose his
own default view of the blog in the user's profile? I
much prefer the recent view, but occasionally I find myself
accidentally back in your default view - which of course is not the
recent view. Often it is some time before I figure out I am
in the wrong view and am missing many recent posts.
By the way, I have heard it is illegal for the specialist to
take someone's stop when it is out of the current market
prices. However, it happens all the time. Maybe a
complaint to the SEC and copied to the exchange might get some
attention and cause the specialist to reverse the trade. You
never know. Someday I might make that complaint myself, but I
usually use mental stops because of this very problem.
I like your thinking about sentiment. However, I think
sentiment is very bullish, and contrarians should be watching, only
watching, for a pullback. You are right though that active
traders have been looking for that pullback for a long, long
time. We forget that what really matters is not how high
sentiment is but how it is changing. It is when sentiment
stops rising that a turn can come. As long as sentiment is
rising, the bulls are in charge.
In my experience the macd zero line has nothing to do with
confirming a price move. In other words, as you noted, you
just play the turn in price when the macd confirms with its own
crossover.
Thanks for the reply. My chart was a 30 minute
chart. When I click on the shortcut in the blog I get the
30min chart I posted. If you do not, that is important to
know. I assumed the shortcuts worked for all as I posted.
You didn't ask me, but I can't help but stick my nose in this
matter. NEVER, NEVER BUY A CRASHING STOCK UNTIL IT TURNS
UP. When you buy before the turn, you are predicting the
future. The market can remain irrational longer than you can
remain solvent. Wait for the turn and then get in. If
you catch 80% of the move instead of 100%, you will be doing
fabulously, and you will avoid many devastating losses when your
guess will turn out to be wrong.
Hello, folks. I have been using Scottrade. It gives
you no way to auto trade with moving averages. Which
platforms out there offer a way to auto trade with moving
averages?
Thanks for any suggestions you can offer.
joe
Newsletter
Subscribe to our email list for regular free market updates
as well as a chance to get coupons!
The community is delayed by three days for non registered users.
My stockcharts are also not working
Stockcharts
Posted by jungfan on 28th of Sep 2009 at 08:16 am
My stockcharts are also not working.
joe
Sorry, jtverr, but I thought the question was rhetorical
let's see if the picture works this time...
Posted by jungfan on 14th of Sep 2009 at 12:13 am
I have not read the 911 report; I have read several summaries of their findings. I have been more interested in the technical work of the NTSB and have read their reports. The NTSB investigators and other professional commentators are the source of my understandings. I do not claim to be the original thinker, but my study of the work of others convinces me that my eyes did not lie. Two planes destroyed the buildings.
As a one time pilot, I have long followed aviation and have looked at its glories and its tragedies. I think if you look at the record of fires which destroy commercial aircraft, you will find that few people are killed by the initial explosion. Instead, the initial explosion is followed by fuel pouring into the cabin and then the people die in the fire which follows. Aviation fuel is generally not all consumed in a single merciful explosion. The few who have survived such events tell of seeing the fuel run down the aisle followed by the fire.
I don't believe any sky scraper anywhere could withstand a hit from a commercial jet loaded with fuel. If you check it out, people are pretty sure that even nuclear reactor containment buildings are not able to withstand such a strike.
Obviously, the towers were not designed as bunkers. They had steel girder construction and the steel was destroyed by fire just as the steel in the Madrid building was destroyed by fire.
Remember, the towers were built to serve as offices, not as bomb shelters. Fires destroyed many ships in World War II - despite the fact they were designed for combat. Not all of them were destroyed by under water holes in the hull. The steel structures failed in the heat of the fires due to expansion and contraction. Think of what happened to the Japanese carriers at Midway which had planes loaded with fuel on their decks. A bomb or two started the planes on fire, and the fire completed the destruction.
A fire chief once told me there is no such thing as a fire proof safe. A safe might be designed to withstand some fires, but no safe can withstand all possible fires in a normal building. I am sure that to design a building which could withstand such an attack would leave you with an underground reinforced concrete bunker.
I am also sure I will not be able to persuade someone who does not believe the evidence and the logic of the arguments made so far. The cameras of the world showed the cause. Obviously, the towers were not made to withstand a hit from the large jets which destroyed them. If anyone once thought they would withstand such a strike, they were wrong.
By the way, what other explanation could there possibly be?
In order to be merciful to those on the site who wish only to study the markets, I will bow out of this particular line of discussion. I love these debates but I think it drives some people to distraction if they go on too long. While I hope to make no additional posts, I will certainly read any further comments you may have.
By the way, I tried sending an earlier version of this post, but I haven't seen it on the blog. If it shows up on the blog in addition to this post, I apologize for the repetition.
joe
Matt, a great summary of the inflation - deflation issue
Peter Schiff: Deflation vs. Inflation Argument on FSN
Posted by jungfan on 13th of Sep 2009 at 04:13 pm
Matt, I think you have it right. If the banks don't feel safe lending, no inflation of general prices. It is possible for equities to rise though because the Fed can loan to Goldman and other companies which invest in the market.
joe
Yes, aviation fuel is all you needed
let's see if the picture works this time...
Posted by jungfan on 13th of Sep 2009 at 10:48 am
A huge load of aviation fuel is all you needed. Why is Jet A used as fuel? Because it carries a great deal of energy. You could burn buildings down to destroy them, but the risk is too great. Most people who die in a fire do not die of burns. Most die of fume inhalation. We don't burn old hotels because of the toxic fumes and the risk of a fire spreading to other structures.
No, the Jet A fuel did not all disappear in the initial explosion. Another reason Jet A is used is that you can burn it in a controlled manner without risking an explosion (when used normally!). Thousands of gallons survived the initial eplosion and traveled down stair wells and elevator shafts (liquids always find the low spots; just check may basement after a 200 year rain). Thus the fire was able to get at too much of the girders for the structure to survive.
There was a fire in Madrid where a sky scraper burned. Part of the structure survived because of massive reinforced concrete. The top part of the structure did not have reinforced concrete and the steel structure in this areas was utterly destroyed; where there was not support from reinforced concrete, the steel deformed and the structure failed. Here is a link with more info: http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm
The twin towers did not have significant amounts of reinforced concrete.
When I said end of story, I didn't mean my opinion was final. I meant the fuel fire was sufficient cause to end the story of the twin towers.
Folks, unless someone here suggests that Hurricane Katrina was caused by the CIA, I don't plan to make any more posts about these theories that we Americans must have destroyed our own citizens because surely noone else could have.
joe
the steel didn't need to melt
let's see if the picture works this time...
Posted by jungfan on 11th of Sep 2009 at 04:10 pm
Folks,
The World Trade Center collapsed because the steel expanded and contracted with the horrific changes in temperature. Melting was not required. Many piles of twisted steel are left behind when industrial buildings burn. They didn't melt, but they do snap their rivets and beam to beam joints when they expand beyond the structural integrity of the design. Just ask any urban fireman.
A general who commanded the SR71 spy plane squadron in Europe told me that the heat generated by the friction of the plane passing at Mach 3+ through the thin air above 80,000 feet is so intense that the wing span expands in excess of six feet. He said the miracle was that the plane's material was not destroyed by the expansion and contraction.
Steel expands with the intense heat of a massive aviation fuel fire. Expansion destroys the junctions where the beams are joined together. End of story.
joe
Typo is correct
Richard Russell's Observations
Posted by jungfan on 18th of Aug 2009 at 09:18 am
I'm sure he meant $27.50 a month. No ordinary place rented for $275 a month in that time period.
joe
Would you be vaccinated?
Would you be vaccinated??..
Posted by jungfan on 17th of Aug 2009 at 07:06 pm
Of course I would always opt for the vaccine if the disease is a real threat. A few have suffered from vaccines. But hundreds of millions have been saved from horrible illnesses. It is simple fact. I am not in the health care industry, but I remember what it was like before the vaccines. I have friends who were infected with polio before the vaccine was available; I have no friends who contracted it after receiving the vaccine. Just ask my friends who contracted polio whether they would take the vaccine if they could turn the clock back. It won't be an issue. Believe me. It won't be an issue for those who know the disease first hand.
joe
Day trading gaps
Posted by jungfan on 17th of Aug 2009 at 08:19 am
Hello, folks. I wonder if any of the experienced day traders would share their thoughts about how to trade huge opening gaps.
Thanks much.
joe
Internals are weakening?
Posted by jungfan on 14th of Aug 2009 at 07:40 am
see new highs minus new lows; I am trying to post a chart; if it doesn't work try this link:
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$NYHL&p=D&yr=0&mn=3&dy=0&id=p22269298564&a=174031463
joe
I don't understand your post
small blog changes
Posted by jungfan on 13th of Aug 2009 at 10:24 am
The paramater I wish to set is which view opens when I go to the blog. Right now it always opens "View all" but it doesn't open in the "View All - Recent" view. I would like to have a way to set a parameter so that it always opens in the Recent view. Sometimes I go back from viewing a chart in the blog, and I lose the recent view setting. It is a small matter, but I think a lot of us would prefer to be able to choose the default manner of organizing our view of the blog. So, if it isn't hard to make that possible, it might be a popular feature. By the way, I can't find such an option in the current profile section. If it is there, maybe one day I'll find it.
joe
blog changes
small blog changes
Posted by jungfan on 13th of Aug 2009 at 09:13 am
James,
Could you consider allowing each member to choose his own default view of the blog in the user's profile? I much prefer the recent view, but occasionally I find myself accidentally back in your default view - which of course is not the recent view. Often it is some time before I figure out I am in the wrong view and am missing many recent posts.
joe
stopped out by specialist
Strangely stopped out of RPT
Posted by jungfan on 10th of Aug 2009 at 10:50 am
By the way, I have heard it is illegal for the specialist to take someone's stop when it is out of the current market prices. However, it happens all the time. Maybe a complaint to the SEC and copied to the exchange might get some attention and cause the specialist to reverse the trade. You never know. Someday I might make that complaint myself, but I usually use mental stops because of this very problem.
joe
Lucy thoughts
SPX Long Term Charts
Posted by jungfan on 9th of Aug 2009 at 05:58 am
Lucy,
I like your thinking about sentiment. However, I think sentiment is very bullish, and contrarians should be watching, only watching, for a pullback. You are right though that active traders have been looking for that pullback for a long, long time. We forget that what really matters is not how high sentiment is but how it is changing. It is when sentiment stops rising that a turn can come. As long as sentiment is rising, the bulls are in charge.
In my experience the macd zero line has nothing to do with confirming a price move. In other words, as you noted, you just play the turn in price when the macd confirms with its own crossover.
joe
bull flag
Bull Flags?
Posted by jungfan on 7th of Aug 2009 at 07:11 am
User32
Thanks for the reply. My chart was a 30 minute chart. When I click on the shortcut in the blog I get the 30min chart I posted. If you do not, that is important to know. I assumed the shortcuts worked for all as I posted.
Thanks.
joe
Bull Flags?
Posted by jungfan on 6th of Aug 2009 at 03:31 pm
I think Matt mentioned the possibility of a bull flag in the short term xlf chart. Does anyone think this chart shows a bull flag?
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=iwm&p=30&b=3&g=0&id=p63508777118
I'm trying to decide if I stay short over night. Thanks for any thoughts.
joe
TBT Prognosticator
TBT Prognosticator
Posted by jungfan on 6th of Aug 2009 at 11:37 am
Can you explain how you reach these conclusions from the TBT? I just wonder how the TBT can be used to prognosticate.
Thanks,
joe
Thanks Vida for the info
Which trade platforms offer mechanical moving average trading
Posted by jungfan on 6th of Aug 2009 at 10:14 am
Thanks Vida for the info
joe
thanks for the posting chart instructions
Nasdaq internals
Posted by jungfan on 6th of Aug 2009 at 10:10 am
Thanks for the posting chart instructions.
joe
Reply to QID
QID
Posted by jungfan on 6th of Aug 2009 at 08:57 am
Mike,
You didn't ask me, but I can't help but stick my nose in this matter. NEVER, NEVER BUY A CRASHING STOCK UNTIL IT TURNS UP. When you buy before the turn, you are predicting the future. The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. Wait for the turn and then get in. If you catch 80% of the move instead of 100%, you will be doing fabulously, and you will avoid many devastating losses when your guess will turn out to be wrong.
joe
Which trade platforms offer mechanical moving average trading
Posted by jungfan on 6th of Aug 2009 at 08:38 am
Hello, folks. I have been using Scottrade. It gives you no way to auto trade with moving averages. Which platforms out there offer a way to auto trade with moving averages?
Thanks for any suggestions you can offer.
joe