10 years after the Terror Attacks on 9/11: a Lecture by Dr. Daniel Ganser.

Originally posted by ANOK


Because people are never referred to as 'it'?

No, but "an operation" which is a singular abstract noun could be. Why are you so sure it couldn't be?

And coincidentally 'pull it' is a well know demolition term. Please don't try to claim it isn't.

I know it is. It means to pull something down with chains.

Why would Silverstein say, in a sentence where he's talking about the firefighting operation, that he intended to pull the building down with chains?

I thought Frank Fellini had 'pulled' the firefighters out by 11.30am.

On top of that the owner of a building has NO say over whether the fire department should stop its operation. That is a public safety issue.

edit on 11/4/2011 by ANOK because: typo

This I agree with. But i think Silverstein is a rather arrogant man who was building up his part in the decision. That just seems more logical than he accidentally admitted blowing up a building.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


well interesting dave...but Larry Silverstein is an intelligent man i would venture to say...and some whom would use words gramarically correct would you not say....

IT being in reference to an object.

THEM being in reference to persons or people.

So one would surmise then if one was talking of people he would say..."pull them"

and if one was talking about a object(building) then one would say ..."pull it"

But i am am not a linguistic expert .....but thanks dave for your astounding analysis.

To me personally, I think the "PULL IT" Truthers are even more delusional than the noplaners.

I love laughing at them. I can picture them at the new 911 independent under oath with subpoena power investigation.

Larry is on the stand.

"Mister Silverstein when you said "pull it" were you talking about the firemen or building 7" ?

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

well interesting dave...but Larry Silverstein is an intelligent man i would venture to say...and some whom would use words gramarically correct would you not say....

IT being in reference to an object.

THEM being in reference to persons or people.

If you want to keep beating this dead horse, fine. Please explain how "becuase there was such a huge loss of life we thought the best thing to do was ask firefighter command to secretly blow up WTC 7 and cover up the murder of 343 of their brither firefighters" makes even a microbe of rational sense. This is what YOU are claiming Silverstein said, after all, anyone else.

Seriously, guy, if there really was a conspiracy you wouldn't have to be microanalyzing what people said to look for hidden meanings like. In the real world, presidents can't even out a CIA agent without hordes of jouralists tracing it back to them.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


ok just to beat a dead horse and stop being so dramatic with the BS....we are talking about Building 7 here that went down what.....around 5pm when most everyone was evacuated .....I am not sure but since you like to spread things around and build things up to level of untruth....clarify...are you saying that 343 firefighters died in building 7......

Lets do a senario here shall we....pure speculation though so keep it in that context shall we...FLT 93 they lost control of it ....it did not reach its target.....supposed target....Building 7....is it possible....i mean we are talking about 19 deranged drinking coke snorting muslims as portrayed by the OS whom by the very nature of their descriptions are screwups.

but lets say the senario is to build up this rediculous story of the hijackers....presented as the only senario and then a mistake happens....one of the planes does not hit it's inteneded target.....the other targets are reached....the plan is coming together....the towers (rigged) have collapsed from the aircraft strikes ...but houston we have a problem.....we have a rigged building 7 which has not gone down....and it holds Maga Savings and loans case papers...it holds Major eveidence against us....

Built in 1985, it was formerly the headquarters of the junk-bond firm Drexel Burnham Lambert, which contributed to the Savings and Loans collapse, prompting the $500-billion taxpayer-underwritten bailout of the latter 1980s. At the time of its destruction, it exclusively housed government agencies and financial institutions. It contained offices of the IRS, Secret Service, and SEC.

Tenant Square Feet Floor Industry
Salomon Smith Barney 1,202,900 GRND,1-6,13,18-46 Financial Institution
IRS Regional Council 90,430 24, 25 Government
U.S. Secret Service 85,343 9,10 Government
C.I.A. N/A N/A Government
American Express Bank International 106,117 7,8,13 Financial Institution
Standard Chartered Bank 111,398 10,13,26,27 Financial Institution
Provident Financial Management 9,000 7,13 Financial Institution
ITT Hartford Insurance Group 122,590 19-21 [Insurance]
First State Management Group, Inc 4,000 21 Insurance
Federal Home Loan Bank 47,490 22 Financial Institution
NAIC Securities 22,500 19 Insurance
Securities & Exchange Commission 106,117 11,12,13 Government
Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt 45,815 23 Government
This list is based on a table published by CNN.com, which did not include CIA, whose tenancy was disclosed after the attack in the New York Times article. 1

do you see the problem here ...we can no longer make it look like an aircraft brought the building down....Damn....what do we do now.....well you "pull it"

you say the fires were responsible for bring it down and all is good......so lets look a WTC 4 massive Damage from towers collapse.....mega fires to the entire structure....



Did this building come down......not completely now did it.....pulling it may not have been an easy call but they had already kill 2000 people had they not...but made it look a legit terroist attack so hey .... I will have to say.....i woulld not try to be so trusting in the people you are so bonded to.....As who know what the next trick will be.

You do know that all roads lead to rome don't you.....The world is waking up Slowly but it is waking up to what TPTB are capable of and to the fact that the whole object is to keep us living in fear through hate.

but please.....do not try to say that a bunch of fire fighters died in building 7 but i will say this....it their plan had work in the previous senario...there would have even been a greater loss of life....building 7 was always a target and for very good reasons.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Silly Truther.... You just said it. You are telling us that Larry said pull it to the firemen as in blow it up.

Do you get the connection, or do we need to explain further ?

Call me silly truther again I swear to god I will reach through my keyboard and...

So what twisted logic are you using now to make that claim?

All I said was it's stupid to think the firefighters planted the explosives. Why would they do it?
No, they would have been planted days, weeks, months, before, by professional demolition experts.

What has that got to do with 'pull it' meaning firefighters?

I don't even know why I'm bothering with this, regardless of what larry said the physics proves WTC 7 was a controlled implosion demolition, period. The physics is all that matters, and the only thing worth discussing imo, as that is where the proof of government lies, lie.

Originally posted by ANOK

What has that got to do with 'pull it' meaning firefighters?

the physics proves WTC 7 was a controlled implosion demolition, period.

Larry was talking to a firefighter not a demolition teem when he said pull it.

According to plube's physics which you backed up. WTC 7 had the most potential energy of all three buildings,why would it not collapse.....Truther ?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Unless the explosives were already there.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Larry was talking to a firefighter not a demolition teem when he said pull it.

What was the name of this "firefighter"?

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Unless the explosives were already there.

You mean those fireproof and impact proof explosives that can withstand direct exposure to flames and high temps for 6-7 hours? WOW! Those are some awesome explosives! And to think the wiring also managed to survive all of this too.....

Originally posted by waypastvne

Larry was talking to a firefighter not a demolition teem when he said pull it.

No, he was talking to the press, PBS to be precise. We have no idea what was said by Larry, to whom, or when, other than that statement made for a PBS documentary.

According to plube's physics which you backed up. WTC 7 had the most potential energy of all three buildings,why would it not collapse.....Truther ?

Again you fail to understand Pe, as in the other posts that explain your constant misunderstandings.

You can't just claim a building had X amount of Pe. Pe is the stored energy due to the position of an object. You should really attempt to explain how WTC7 had Pe, and how much. Pe is relative, it depends on mass and height, spring force, outside forces acting on it etc., so how do you figure the Pe? Pe of what, the whole building? Did the whole building jump up and fall back down on itself?

Claiming it was simply because of Pe is nonsense, it dismisses the known laws of motion. It shows you simply don't care about the truth, you'll just keep repeating the same nonsense, no matter how many times you're shown to be wrong.

Once again this discussion has to go back to school...

Potential Energy

An object can store energy as the result of its position. For example, the heavy ball of a demolition machine is storing energy when it is held at an elevated position. This stored energy of position is referred to as potential energy. Similarly, a drawn bow is able to store energy as the result of its position. When assuming its usual position (i.e., when not drawn), there is no energy stored in the bow.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

An object at rest has NO Pe. So tell me how did WTC 7 have Pe?

Now I don't want to hear your nonsense about Pe anymore, OK? This post will be the reply if you do.

Some common physics misunderstanding...

Students believe potential energy is a thing that objects hold (like cereal stored in a closet).

Students believe stored energy is something that causes energy later. It is not energy until it has been released.

departments.weber.edu...

Originally posted by GenRadek
You mean those fireproof and impact proof explosives that can withstand direct exposure to flames and high temps for 6-7 hours?

WOW! Those are some awesome explosives! And to think the wiring also managed to survive all of this too.....

If thermite was used it needs a much higher temp than a room fire to set it off, and it will not be set off by impact.

If there were any other type of explosives they could have simply been set only in the lower floors, to blow out the much larger core columns.

Thermite is not easy to ignite. Thermite has a very high activation energy required to start the reaction. The two most common ways to ignite thermite are...

...It is important to mix the thermite ingredients thoroughly in order to create a homogeneous mixture. Unless the thermite is sufficiently mixed, it may be difficult to ignite or sustain the thermite reaction.

amazingrust.com...

The ignition temperature of thermite is extremely high. Therefore, traditional ignition methods like fuse, matches, and electrical igniters do not work. There are several ways to safely light a thermite mixture, the most common being...

www.pyroguide.com...

Thermite is typically very difficult to ignite, requiring a temperature of over 3,000 degrees F just to get the reaction started. It will not ignite using ordinary safety fuse, or from contact with open flame.

www.unitednuclear.com...

reply to post by ANOK


So according to you Larry may have never said "pull it" to any one except for PBS. Can I quote you ?

PULL IT TRUTHERS are just as murciélago mierda loco as noplaners

I never stated anything about PE and WTC7.... plube did. He described WTC7 as having the most PE of the three buildings and you agreed with him. This was just yesterday, are Truthers memories that short ?

Originally posted by ANOK
Again you fail to understand Pe, as in the other posts that explain your constant misunderstandings.

Oh, this is not going to end well.

Originally posted by ANOK
Pe is the stored energy due to the position of an object.

This is correct! What the heck is going on here?

Originally posted by ANOK
Pe is relative, it depends on mass and height, spring force, outside forces acting on it etc.,

No, No, NO!!! yes, it depends on mass and height. 'spring force' is right out (we're not talking about elastic potential energy here in case 'spring force' is intended to indicate that), along with 'outside forces', which don't come into the picture at all.. Wikipedia has a good starting summary.

Originally posted by ANOK
Once again this discussion has to go back to school...

Troll school, apparently.

Originally posted by ANOK

Potential Energy

An object can store energy as the result of its position. For example, the heavy ball of a demolition machine is storing energy when it is held at an elevated position. This stored energy of position is referred to as potential energy. Similarly, a drawn bow is able to store energy as the result of its position. When assuming its usual position (i.e., when not drawn), there is no energy stored in the bow.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

YES! you looked something up before you posted. This is all valuable information from a reliable source. Congratulations. On the other hand, I think it's incorrect to say that energy is not stored in a drawn bow, and he goes on to contradict this formulation later on in the page, but that's no big deal. It's certainly not too far off base.

Originally posted by ANOK
An object at rest has NO Pe.

But you didn't READ the information, apparently.

Maybe you're thinking of Ke or Kinetic energy. But you were talking about Pe, or Potential energy, so I don't see how you could have been confused, unless you really don't understand anything you wrote about.

OK. From now on, look up information AND READ IT, before posting. You're making real progress, ANOK. Only 2 weeks ago, you told us about 'potential energy pushing up'. But I must say that learning physics by trial and error is the wrong way to go. Get a textbook, work through the problems. I know, I know, math is hard, but it can be fun.

Originally posted by ANOK
Now I don't want to hear your nonsense about Pe anymore, OK?

Here's to that. Let's not have any of YOUR nonsense about it either, ANOK.

Oh, by the way...

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
You mean those fireproof and impact proof explosives that can withstand direct exposure to flames and high temps for 6-7 hours?

WOW! Those are some awesome explosives! And to think the wiring also managed to survive all of this too.....

If thermite was used it needs a much higher temp than a room fire to set it off, and it will not be set off by impact.

If there were any other type of explosives they could have simply been set only in the lower floors, to blow out the much larger core columns.

Thermite is not easy to ignite. Thermite has a very high activation energy required to start the reaction. The two most common ways to ignite thermite are...

...It is important to mix the thermite ingredients thoroughly in order to create a homogeneous mixture. Unless the thermite is sufficiently mixed, it may be difficult to ignite or sustain the thermite reaction.

amazingrust.com...

The ignition temperature of thermite is extremely high. Therefore, traditional ignition methods like fuse, matches, and electrical igniters do not work. There are several ways to safely light a thermite mixture, the most common being...

www.pyroguide.com...

Thermite is typically very difficult to ignite, requiring a temperature of over 3,000 degrees F just to get the reaction started. It will not ignite using ordinary safety fuse, or from contact with open flame.

www.unitednuclear.com...

edit on 11/6/2011 by ANOK because: typo

Ummmm ANOK? Are you saying that "thermite" is now an explosive?

There were fires in the area where the failure occurred. Therefore you are suggesting that the explosives survived being exposed to fires for hours on end.

But then again, you must now go back and give us an idea of just how they managed to rig the WTC7. Why is it that I cannot get a single straight story from a Truther regarding anything on 9/11? I thought WTC7 was brought down with explosives. Now you throw in thermite. Then its thermite and explosives. Then its exploding thermite. Then its exploding/burning paint-on thermite that goes off silently and with massive explosives that no one hears. Get your stories straightened out. For people who ridicule the "OS" (Whatever that is) as being full of holes, you guys are like a screen window. So many holes................