my journal 3

This is a discussion on my journal 3 within the Trading Journals forums, part of the Reception category; Originally Posted by travis I am 99% convinced that there weren't any planes hitting the twin towers I find that ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 2, 2012, 10:33pm   #1631
Joined Jun 2011
Re: my journal 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by travis View Post
I am 99% convinced that there weren't any planes hitting the twin towers
I find that a very strange statement and i'm sure you will retract it.

It reminds me of when people say 'Look at the CCTV of the Pentagon. You cannot see a plane. It must be a missle.'

Of course when it is slowed down by xxx amount, there is the Plane which was travelling at 500 odd mph on full throttle.

I think it is easy to get lost in too many conspiracy theories and lose perspective. I've been there myself to an extent.
YouAreNotFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2012, 10:37pm   #1632
 
travis's Avatar
Joined Mar 2003
Re: my journal 3

travis started this thread I won't retract it, you're kidding me? I've done plenty of research on this, and I am keeping track of my ideas and my estimates and I am not changing them erratically (the journal keeps track of my thoughts). What do you bet on?

You bet that the government version is true? Tell me which is the right version in your opinion.

Thanks for the feedback.
__________________
Read: E.P. Chan, Cogneau - Hubner, Sewell, Tverberg. Search: expected shortfall, Monte Carlo VaR, extreme value theory. Trade.

Last edited by travis; Sep 2, 2012 at 10:42pm.
travis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2012, 10:39pm   #1633
 
travis's Avatar
Joined Mar 2003
Re: my journal 3

travis started this thread Ah ah, awesome "conspiracy" is used as a synonym of "unstable". Now, of course, if you are not awake, then granted, anyone who sees the truth is crazy, so the person interviewed is coherent, with his carefree smile, too:





Still watching these excellent playlists by euro944t:
http://www.youtube.com/user/euro944t
__________________
Read: E.P. Chan, Cogneau - Hubner, Sewell, Tverberg. Search: expected shortfall, Monte Carlo VaR, extreme value theory. Trade.

Last edited by travis; Sep 2, 2012 at 10:45pm.
travis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2012, 10:41pm   #1634
 
travis's Avatar
Joined Mar 2003
Re: my journal 3

travis started this thread Right, the school books. Useful perspective in 2008, from a 16 year old who happens to be awake (congratulations to him):

__________________
Read: E.P. Chan, Cogneau - Hubner, Sewell, Tverberg. Search: expected shortfall, Monte Carlo VaR, extreme value theory. Trade.
travis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2012, 10:43pm   #1635
Joined Jun 2011
Re: my journal 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by travis View Post
I won't retract it, you're kidding me? I've done plenty of research on this, and I am keeping track of my ideas and my estimates and I am not changing them erratically (the journal keeps track of my thoughts). What do you bet on?

You bet that the government version is true? Tell me which is the right version in your opinion.

Thanks for the feedback.

I don't have confidence in the Government version.

How would you explain the thousands who witnessed the planes? The other footage?
YouAreNotFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2012, 10:51pm   #1636
 
travis's Avatar
Joined Mar 2003
Re: my journal 3

travis started this thread Oh no, seriously. There's more evidence of people not seeing any planes than people seeing planes. Check out this guy for example. He is reading a script, it's known on the web, his name is mark walsh ("mostly due to structural failure..", wow, he's got it all figured out for you):



I've got the smoking gun for you, just watch these six minutes:



The tape with the planes came out mostly hours after the event (not live), and it was all a montage. The only live shot of the airplane hitting the second tower was fake (cfr. video above).

Check this out, too:



it looked like a movie, because it was a movie.



maybe we're not so crazy... on this last video there's plenty of reasons and useful links in the description.

If you have a lot more time, the official "no planers" documentary is this:



You'll find that even some reporters are not mentioning planes but just explosions.

At this phase, I am at the next step and am wondering how many hundreds people really died, because it wasn't thousands as we were told (which is a good thing).



View forum - VICSIMS: the simulated victims of 9/11 • Cluesforum.info
__________________
Read: E.P. Chan, Cogneau - Hubner, Sewell, Tverberg. Search: expected shortfall, Monte Carlo VaR, extreme value theory. Trade.

Last edited by travis; Sep 3, 2012 at 4:20pm.
travis is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks! The following members like this post: Benj1981
Old Sep 3, 2012, 1:36pm   #1637
Joined Jun 2011
Re: my journal 3

I've watched the first 40 min of the 'No Planes' doc (thus far). I could write an essay on the first 10 mins alone.

But for now I will let pictures speak a thousand words (top vid)....

Debunking the Debunkers: No-Planes / Tv-Fakery theory demolished!
YouAreNotFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2012, 1:55pm   #1638
 
travis's Avatar
Joined Mar 2003
Re: my journal 3

travis started this thread Thanks for taking the time to consider and investigate that hypothesis.

Now it will be my turn to watch your debunking of the debunking. And I am approaching it with an open mind - it's not like I have "no planers" t-shirts to sell.

Then I'll come back and tell you whether I got convinced and the reasons.

This seems to be a great link, the one you gave me. The only links I would be suspicious of would be those supporting the official version of the government. But truthers debating truthers is a great debate.

That website is very good at promoting this kind of debate. I am browsing it thoroughly and i found this excellent link:
Debunking the Debunkers: Top 40 Reasons the Official 9/11 Story is Bunk!

By getting sidetracked I also found this other excellent link (one of the top 10 links on 911):
Complete 911 Timeline: All Day of 9/11 Events
__________________
Read: E.P. Chan, Cogneau - Hubner, Sewell, Tverberg. Search: expected shortfall, Monte Carlo VaR, extreme value theory. Trade.

Last edited by travis; Sep 3, 2012 at 2:15pm.
travis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2012, 5:17pm   #1639
 
travis's Avatar
Joined Mar 2003
Re: my journal 3

travis started this thread Ok, done for now. The website you gave me has a lot of useful resources, as i said, but the two videos I managed to watch (cfr. videos below), which are supposedly the best ones, as they're given great emphasis, do not address the most important points made by the videos I posted (the video fakery of "nose-in, nose-out" and how it was handled by all the media networks, with CNN hiding it, because they realized it was poor fakery - huge smoking gun right there), and address other points but not satisfactorily (engine found in the street and so on, no technical expertise shown in both videos), so I am still very much a convinced "no planer".

However, I notice that, on the same page, there are dozens of resources supposedly debunking my idea, and I haven't been able to watch them all yet, but so far I haven't changed my mind and if the quality of the other videos is the same, then it will be useful to watch them because I'll be even more convinced. If I'll change my mind I'll also make sure to write it here.

This is the page with a lot of "debunking" resources:
Debunking the Debunkers: 5 No-planer Claims Refuted



The above is the video posted on that page, which says:
Quote:
This is for anyone who still thinks the no-plane theories have any credibility. Please consider this my public statement about no-plane theories: They have no merit and are all wrong.
And yet it offers very little evidence and reasoning.

This is the link you posted:
Debunking the Debunkers: No-Planes / Tv-Fakery theory demolished!

This is the video they show:



To me this last video offers even fewer insights.

Hey, I believed it was planes that hit the towers until recently, so I am not really partisan of any sides. This is just my reasoning on what seems to be the case. What really counts though is that we agree that it wasn't bin laden that did this, and the implications of this are huge.

As of now this is what i believe: it wasn't planes, but all media fakery as far as planes are concerned. However, in my opinion the most likely thing is that missiles hit the towers. At least for the second tower. For the first one, it might simply have been a bomb.

I don't know much, but I am proceeding in the dark and doing the best with what i know. This is the consequences of realizing how much government and media lie to us. It was much easier before, believing what the majority believed, which in turn was what the media and education fed to us.

[...]

I am still watching them, and this is the best debunking:



This is very good, because it indeed makes me think that if I am right and the debunking is wrong, even the makers of Loose Change might be cointelpro and Jules Naudet as well. Actually Bermas could simply be wrong, but Naudet would have to be part of the hoax completely, as they say here:
JULES NAUDET
__________________
Read: E.P. Chan, Cogneau - Hubner, Sewell, Tverberg. Search: expected shortfall, Monte Carlo VaR, extreme value theory. Trade.

Last edited by travis; Sep 3, 2012 at 6:50pm.
travis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2012, 6:36pm   #1640
 
travis's Avatar
Joined Mar 2003
"...we're moving into a surveillance state"

travis started this thread Vets Being Round Up Nationwide, People Everywhere Just Disappearing



Yep, this is an historical moment. Things just keep on getting worse and worse for some reason. You'd think: didn't they steal enough money and couldn't they rest for a while now? Hell no, these guys maybe are afraid that if they take a break from screwing the world, the world will recover and strike back.



I posted more on brandon raub here:
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/trad...ml#post1955646
__________________
Read: E.P. Chan, Cogneau - Hubner, Sewell, Tverberg. Search: expected shortfall, Monte Carlo VaR, extreme value theory. Trade.

Last edited by travis; Sep 3, 2012 at 6:45pm.
travis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

« bloggin the ES | - »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
my journal Fuzzybid Trading Journals 16 Jul 17, 2011 6:49pm
My Journal for all to see herronryan Trading Journals 44 Aug 26, 2010 5:32pm
A journal arabianights Trading Journals 66 Jan 10, 2010 2:09pm
My little journal. HaloTrader Trading Journals 16 Jun 26, 2009 1:02am

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)