ANYWAY . . .

Back to the original intent of this post.

How many of you have read the NIST report?

There have been a few interesting post regarding it, but as a whole this thread is starting to deteriorate.


If you do have a comment on the NIST report, are you confident enough in your beliefs to submitt a comment to NIST?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Two different buildings with two different structural systems.

right whatever you say.

i read the firemen reports you put up about damage to building 7, so we know there was some.
but building 6 is damaged also, it does not explain the total collapse of 7.
different building structure just sounds like a guess.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Where are the sounds of the explosives on tape?
I don't hear anyone saying that WTC 7 sounded like an explosive demolition.
I don't hear the sounds of charges going off.
Of course the towers made sounds as they fell, I would be suspicious if they didn't.

But why does that matter Howard? We did show you tapes of Firemen who DID hear and feel explosives and you just ignored their opinion and showed us 'proof' with other firemen who didn't comment on explosions.

Why would showing you witnesses that heard WTC7 explosions mean anything to you anyway? Your trying to get people to chase their tail rather than respecting anything that is said. Your not here to work anything out, your hear to supress other peoples views.

Your not providing any 'proof' either but your trying to act like the encyclopedia of 9/11 and writing off other peoples views if you acknowledge them at all with flippent comments or narrow minded logic.

So far you've provided a challange of an NIST report, you've had that challange met by AdamJ and the UL letter and you ignore it or shrug it off and say 'where's the proof'.

Seriously, atleast get a new line. This is a conspiracy website, expect 'conspiracies' to come with theorising. It's not productive to ONLY use government links to prove a conspiracy the same way it's not productive to only use empty theories but your only kidding yourself if you think the demo theory is empty.

What if only the Howards were the only voice heard regarding the JFK assissnation and history explained that by ONLY using government sources and reasoning? Your doing the same thing here with 9/11. Let it breath a bit and expand your vision.


[edit on 30-6-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

Ah, the great selective viewing. Nice job in picking out surrounding statements that have nothing to do with the fact that they DEMOLISHED WTC7 WITH EXPLOSIVES. Even if it had major structural damage. Even if it was out of the thought of saving more lives. The fact remains that they pulled the tower on 911 which would be impossible without having the charges in place before hand.

There is absolutley no proof of this. There were hundreds of firemen around the site that would have been close enough to hear any explosives going off. WERE ARE THEY?

There were news cameras close enough to film the collapse. WHERE ARE THE SOUNDS OF THE CHARGES GOING OFF?

Again, you have completely ignored what was said.

SILVERSTEIN SAID THEY PULLED WTC7

PULLED means DEMOLISHED WITH EXPLOSIVES

I've tried bold and all caps. There are not too many more choices in order for you to see what I wrote. Should I make an etching? What will it take?

Let's try this one more time.

WTC7 WAS DEMOLISHED WITH EXPLOSIVES

Let's try THIS one more time.

There is no proof to back this up.

See my above response. Which I've repeated over and over and over.

2. You are a Traitor to your Country by continuing to ignore the fact.

Go F--- yourself! A-hole.

Oh, now you can read what I write. Did that strike a nerve? It should if you have any loyalty whatsoever to this country. These people in power don't get away with what they do because they are smart. They get away with it because of people like you.

I did gain something from this thread despite it's inherant uselessness. I learned a new trick.

1. Ignore the facts until the person giving the facts questions you personally about the reasons you continue to ignore the facts.

2. Then you can use the ad hominem defense.

Now I have another psychological warfare tactic to look for. If these people are good for anything it's giving themselves away.

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource

Again, you have completely ignored what was said.

SILVERSTEIN SAID THEY PULLED WTC7

PULLED means DEMOLISHED WITH EXPLOSIVES

Again, you completely ignore the context.

Silverstein was talking to a fireman.

To a fireman, pull means to pull back and not fight a fire.

Firemen do not demolish buildings with explosives.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource

Again, you have completely ignored what was said.

SILVERSTEIN SAID THEY PULLED WTC7

PULLED means DEMOLISHED WITH EXPLOSIVES

Again, you completely ignore the context.

Silverstein was talking to a fireman.

To a fireman, pull means to pull back and not fight a fire.

Firemen do not demolish buildings with explosives.

I understand that "pull" can have different meanings to different people.

First, Silverstein didn't say "pull". He said "pull it".

Second, the segment of the PBS special this statement came in was specifically talking about the "collapse" of WTC7. It was not talking about fighting the fires within.

Third, it was the firefighter commander that made the final "decision" to "pull it". I did not say "firemen demolish buildings with explosives".


EDIT: Another important point is that a firefighter commander would never talk with the landlord of a burning property about whether or not they should go in or evacuate. If a firefighter commander did do that I think it would be considered gross negligence. The firefighters are trained. The commander is trained to command the firefighters. The landlord is not trained at all.

[edit on 7-1-2005 by ShadowHasNoSource]

I know[?] that Silverstein is the owner of the building.

What is his basic field of structural language?

Meaning, would his context of "pulls it" be more confinable to fires and saftey, or demolish / build?

For instance, if a repo wrecker driver said "I yanked it", did he mean he got the repo, or played with himself?

Crappy analogy, but I just got up, heh.

I'm just looking for the background of Silverstein's language.

Thanx

Misfit

Another one would be:

A group of ricer/cartuners are looking at eachothers cars and one of them says "man you should seriously boost that ride to get it into the 10s range"

Does this guy mean "boost it" as in stealing it like a carthief would say?
Or does the guy mean "boost it" as in adding a load of aftermarket parts like a turbo and intercooler to add some extra boost to the engine?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
Hummm....
I wonder what HR will say to the UL statement?
nothing yet? I am amazed...

I expected poopie talk about the U.L.labs being communists or liberal biased voicebox or somesuch...

What is there to say. It is not a statment by Underwriters Laboratories.

that was unexpected, but I will address it...
the statement was made by a "whistleblower" type of person within UL labs that had access to the exact UL report (which we don't have access to).
His comments were drawn using text and data from that report...

granted... it didn't say explosives were used...
but it did say without qualification...
U.L. labs report based on testing the materials used in WTC:
"there is no way the fire from the jet fuel could have caused the girders to collapse, even if the metal was not fireproofed" (which it was by law)

so are we back to theorys of missles being used, or fairy dust sprinklings, or UFO death rays?

IMO explosions are the most likely cause, in light of the evidence from UL labs that excluded the fire as causing the collapse even under the worst of circumstances...

and once again... it is surprising that NIST came to the conclusion they did, IGNORING the assesment by the premiere testing agency in the US if not the WORLD.... the UL labs evidence is not cited in the report (correct me if i am wrong... I skimmed some of it)

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong

"there is no way the fire from the jet fuel could have caused the girders to collapse, even if the metal was not fireproofed" (which it was by law)

Well there you have it, by that one statement alone it is possible to conclude that the author has no idea what he is talking about. No laboratory ot testing authority would ever make such a blanket statement. If the parenthetical comment is yours, Woody, then it is also obvious that you have no understanding of how building codes work

Buildings are not required to have fireproofing applied to them. Rather the codes specify that various components of the structure meet specified fire resistance ratings (i.e. a two hour fire rating means that the component would be able to withstand a standard fire for two hours before failure.

Building codes do not specify how those ratings are to be achieved. Various methods can be used, of which sprayed on fireproofing is just one of many possible options.

If the floor and truss assemblies were capable of meeting the required fire resistance rating without sprayed on fireproofing applied, then why would anyone spend the money to apply it?

The fact is, uninsulated steel has very poor fire resistance.

[edit on 2-7-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

The fact is, uninsulated steel has very poor fire resistance.

Unless you work for UL that is and have qualifications in making these claims:

"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

- Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) "

You should get a job at UL Howard because you obviously know more than those running the place!