>> ^ElJardinero:
Or if he was talking about rescue operations...
pull
transitive verb
6: to remove from a place or situation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pull
Why would he be ordering a demolishing on the day in question? Those things take weeks to set up, it's not something you do on a whim.



pull "it"
"It" usually doesn't refer to people


Re: Why would he be ordering a demolishing on the day in question? Those things take weeks to set up, it's not something you do on a whim.

Exactly.. which is why this is a major problem. If detonators were placed before the day in question then this would be a smoking gun that this was an inside job.

MRI Industry:
Reflecting the fundamental importance and applicability of MRI in the medical field, Paul Lauterbur of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Sir Peter Mansfield of the University of Nottingham were awarded the 2003 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their "discoveries concerning magnetic resonance imaging".

Microwave Industry & Cellular Communication Industry:
Maxwell, Hertz, and nearly half of all microwave parts that I can think of were first introduced at NIST... These two I am not going post supporting evidence for.


Nuclear Energy Industry:
Err... Quantum Mechanics- Hello?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Computer Industry(By way of the transistor, substrates, etc.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Edgar_Lilienfeld
He created it at the University of Leipzig. Funded by the German government.

Genetic Engineering Industry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction

Your claim is that without government incentives, these industries would not exist, or would have progressed slower? Can you prove that?

How can I prove something wouldn't exist if people hadn't invented it? The best I can say is it would not have been invented when it was. And scientist wouldn't research whatever they wanted without funding, which companies wouldn't and don't pay for because it is to financially risky. How do I know this? I am a scientist.

Another good example is your IPod and the colossal magnetoresistor in it's hard drive.

Now choggies confused.....Morons?....How bout, a fool makes assumptions, based on limited data-

And we are forgetting, or are we not, doubters and idiots, that buildings only fall like WTC 7 did, when s'ploded....??
Critical thinking being a commodity lost to imbeciles taught to "learn" in bereft institutions and public schools, is there a possibility that an "official" report contains loads of horseshit, and that the word "official" is only a word, meaningless unless AFFORDED SUITABLE CONTEXT???? The NIST report is shit until proven not shit, and it can't be proven such....because even they most likely, don't have all the proper information, and if they do, they are selective and biased in their conclusions......Morons my ass....a moron pooh poohs a possibility because denial is much more palatable.....

The fucking thing did not fall from a fire, and some sprinkies not working, folks.....if ya believe that, then well, join the other morons, on the slow-moving barge to Denseville......

>> ^SDGundamX:
And he couldn't possibly have meant, when he said "pull it," that they should pull out all firemen and equipment trying to save the building. Noooo, that wouldn't be possible at all.


Uhm, noone was hurt when building 7 came down?

That's a good image? That's the SW corner of the building, completely obscured by smoke. This is an important point. Key to the claim of global collapse is extensive damage of the South face, and the NIST report says on the last page...

Witnesses reported structural
damage to WTC 7 on its south face
and southwest corner from WTC 1
debris.

So, witness testimony is acceptable as this much lauded "evidence"?

Choggie Please! That's the same ol' noise these threads always have. Let's take it slow and easy. Please choose the correct durg. I donno, X maybe.

DB (if you don't mind me being informal), Below is page 22 from the NIST Powerpoint. Not a lot of fire, Like I said, standard office fire really...

http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/3628/nistwtc72005p22fe0.jpg

Unfortunately, it's of the north face of the building. We don't really have any good pictures of the South face, where all that smoke is coming from.


>> ^dbalsdon:
So, floors 6,7,8, 10, 11, 12,and all the floors numbered 20-39(which is how I interpret the third line of that second block) were on fire?
So over half the floors(and not a couple as you have claimed) were on fire, but it wasn't a 'towering inferno'?

Cool. Your first point, which regards the intelligence. I think "attacks with airliners" was about all we had in the daily security brief. They get warnings of impending attacks all the time. Nothing real special there. But I just want to think about the building for now. Ultimately I'd like to prove that this is all the deliberate doing of a cruel-hearted cabal within the government, but I don't think that's true, just emotional stuff.

Yes there were different sized fires at many points in the building...

Observed Fire Locations (11:30-2:30 pm)
General
No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby
No signs of fire or smoke below floor 6 from stairwell and lobby areas
Fire reported at west wall of floor 7 around 12:15 pm
In east stairwell, smoke was observed near floors 19-20; signs of a fire
observed on floor 23

So yeah, until 2:30 (3h:10m prior to collapse)

Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11
Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s
Heavy black smoke coming out of south face gash; no fire observed
Looking from southeast corner to the south face
Fire on floor 12;
area above covered with smoke
Fire on floors 11-12
moved to east face and progressed to the north

So this wasn't a towering inferno, right? But still, there is enough fire to really worry about the loss of strength to structural steel (which of course doesn't have to melt, just get hot to weaken). It's interesting when you look at the video. That's some hot stuff, but the video shot pretty tight, and it's one floor, a pretty standard office fire burning out of control. At a variety of places in the building.

[e]oh, all blockquote above from NIST Apr.5,2005

Thanks for your comment post. Your opinion is welcomed here.

In reply to this comment by dbalsdon:
SDGundamX:
You should try debating with headless chickens. It would be a LOT easier then trying to debate with truthers.

"I don't know why people place such great emphasis on what happened on the day rather on how it was allowed to happen given the massive influx of covert intelligence saying that an attack was imminent coming from various sources in Europe."

Exactly what intelligence did they receive? "An attack is going to happen soon", or "4 planes are going to be hijacked and crashed into buildings on 9/11"

"But that's no big deal, because the NIST report is also based mostly on conjecture and witness testimony, with little supporting photographic evidence."

This, coming from someone who claims: "Massive fires raging all day, with nothing to substantiate that." Yep. Except for all the firefighters and people who were actually there, and the photos showing smoke coming from the building.

Hang on. I thought NYC officials already stated publically that WTC7 was intentionally pulled down when it was clear that it couldn't be saved with a reasonable amount of work?

Not WTC7. Some buildings were purposefully demolished/pulled down AFTER 9/11, when "it was clear... blah". Or are you referring to Silverstein's 'pull it' phrase, in which, based on what firefighters on the ground were reporting back to him, he told them to abandon WTC7 because it wasn't safe.

"You are willing to accept the official story where so many are not, simply because they see a 47 story building plummet to the ground at near free-fall speed"

Many? Ha!! Freefall?? Oh, the claim that it collapsed in 9.7(or something like that) seconds. WRONG!! The building took a LOT longer then 9.7 seconds to collapse. First(and the bit that is ALWAYS ignored by truthers) is that the north(east/west) section of wtc7 collapsed about 5 to 10 seconds BEFORE the main collapse started. So, when the main part collapsed, there was already a large part of the building already gone.

Sorry for butting in, but just noticed that the first post here was off me being quoted.

"I don't know why people place such great emphasis on what happened on the day rather on how it was allowed to happen given the massive influx of covert intelligence saying that an attack was imminent coming from various sources in Europe."

Exactly what intelligence did they receive? "An attack is going to happen soon", or "4 planes are going to be hijacked and crashed into buildings on 9/11"

"But that's no big deal, because the NIST report is also based mostly on conjecture and witness testimony, with little supporting photographic evidence."

This, coming from someone who claims: "Massive fires raging all day, with nothing to substantiate that." Yep. Except for all the firefighters and people who were actually there, and the photos showing smoke coming from the building.

Hang on. I thought NYC officials already stated publically that WTC7 was intentionally pulled down when it was clear that it couldn't be saved with a reasonable amount of work?

Not WTC7. Some buildings were purposefully demolished/pulled down AFTER 9/11, when "it was clear... blah". Or are you referring to Silverstein's 'pull it' phrase, in which, based on what firefighters on the ground were reporting back to him, he told them to abandon WTC7 because it wasn't safe.

"You are willing to accept the official story where so many are not, simply because they see a 47 story building plummet to the ground at near free-fall speed"

Many? Ha!! Freefall?? Oh, the claim that it collapsed in 9.7(or something like that) seconds. WRONG!! The building took a LOT longer then 9.7 seconds to collapse. First(and the bit that is ALWAYS ignored by truthers) is that the north(east/west) section of wtc7 collapsed about 5 to 10 seconds BEFORE the main collapse started. So, when the main part collapsed, there was already a large part of the building already gone.

Sorry for butting in, but just noticed that the first post here was off me being quoted.

Well, Gundham, I know your frustration, but from the other side. I still really haven't made my mind up about it, that's why I'm willing to sully my fair reputation in a discourse like this.

We 'tinfoil hatters' and 'troofers' don't have a NIST report to fall back on. But that's no big deal, because the NIST report is also based mostly on conjecture and witness testimony, with little supporting photographic evidence. it if were coming from our camp, I don't think you'd accept it as evidence, either. They never actually confirmed that the fuel supplies contributed to the fire (it would seem to be an easy thing to find residue from diesel fuel, no?). They take a pass at linking asymmetrical instability and simultaneous global collapse and although I'm certainly not qualified to critique it, It's only a theory and I think not the evidence you think it is?

The NIST Report:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%2520Part%2520IIC%2520-%2520WTC%25207%2520Collapse%2520Final.pdf&sa=X&oi=ns_cluster&resnum=1&c
t=result&cd=1&usg=AFQjCNFbfqXglrWPWNVxgXQQXL1xZJtV9Q


Our camp's golden boy, Steven E. Jones, isn't much better, grant you...

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf

Oh, Gundam, no need to give us your exasperated sigh. I know full well I have nothing to back up my intuition, I know that there is no evidence to prove my assertions. I know that you are convinced by the NIST report. I entered into this discussion knowing full well that I couldn't back it up and would get my ass handed to me. That's fine. It must be frustrating for you to carry the burden of all this truth and evidence and see that you are close to the only one to believe it. Previous videos that claim conspiracy are routinely voted to the front page with relatively little dissent. You are willing to accept the official story where so many are not, simply because they see a 47 story building plummet to the ground at near free-fall speed, without so much as a hiccup. As was quoted in the previous posts "what are you gonna believe, the truth or your lying eyes".

Thanks to Mink and Farhad for putting the horse before the cart. This is "chasing ghosts".

>> ^schmawy:
Yes and we've heard a thousand people also parrot the NIST report. Massive fires raging all day, with nothing to substantiate that. What would help would be something as simple as, uh, I don't know, maybe some smoke?
...When you add together the fires and the damage from the plane strikes and subsequent building falls you get the structural collapse shown..
We are talking about WTC7 here, right?


Yes, let's ignore a report that actually looked at the evidence and drew on the collective expertise of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, the National Fire Protection Association, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York. Instead we'll just focus on this guy who claims he heard explosions. Oh, it must be a conspiracy then!

And there are TONS of videos where you can see WTC 7 burning on YouTube if you're looking for smoke. EDIT: (Such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U)

Please let the insanity die. Or at least back it up with some shred of evidence.

Yes and we've heard a thousand people also parrot the NIST report. Massive fires raging all day, with nothing to substantiate that. What would help would be something as simple as, uh, I don't know, maybe some smoke?

...When you add together the fires and the damage from the plane strikes and subsequent building falls you get the structural collapse shown..

We are talking about WTC7 here, right?

“It looked like a classic controlled demolition, said Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolitions Contractors in Doylestown, Pa.

“If there’s any good thing about this it’ that the towers tended not to weaken to one side, “said Taylor. “They could have tipped onto the other buildings…”
The collapse of the WTC Towers mirrored the strategy use by demolitions experts. In controlled demolitions, explosives are placed not just on the lowest three floors but on several consecutive floors..the explosions at the higher floors enable the collapse to gain downward momentum as gravity pulls the full weight of unsupported higher floors down into lower floors ion a snowballing effect.
It cascaded down like an implosion” Says Taylor.

-New Scientist, 12 Sept. 2001


Analysis of dust samples
heavy Metals
Murcury
Asbestos
the cocktail was extremely alkaline +/-15)


The government (EPA) assured no health risks-(falsehoods, lies)
The NIST ruled out controlled demo as a possibility and DID NOT INVESTIGAT based on this premise....

7 yrs later, and nobody gives a fiddlers fuck enough to re-open the case and leave it to public scrutiny??? Even if we could, too late to prove anything based on evidence, which has all nut been conveniently destroyed.

People are still dying from the toxins they breathed in that day.

returned to this post to see hwo chime in-
As always, JAPR showing the ass.....

Yo Anthony!

Hey man. The deadline for the NIST SURF program is sneaking up. Let me know if you are still interested. If you are, send me your CV. Also, I can help you get your application ready.

Nate