10 years after the Terror Attacks on 9/11: a Lecture by Dr. Daniel Ganser., page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 5-11-2011 @ 08:54 AM 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.

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.
edit on 083030p://f55Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 5-11-2011 @ 02:20 PM by GoodOlDave
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 posted on 6-11-2011 @ 04:06 AM by plube
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.


reply posted on 6-11-2011 @ 04:19 PM by GenRadek
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.....


reply posted on 6-11-2011 @ 05:34 PM by ANOK
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.

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



reply posted on 6-11-2011 @ 10:11 PM by waypastvne
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 ?

edit on 6-11-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 6-11-2011 @ 10:31 PM by DrEugeneFixer
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...




reply posted on 7-11-2011 @ 05:00 PM by GenRadek
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................
edit on 11/7/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)

Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 13 days ago with 48 member flags
9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 5 days ago with 45 member flags
9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 15 days ago with 43 member flags
What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 9 days ago with 17 member flags
Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 17 days ago with 13 member flags
Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 19 days ago with 9 member flags
British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 9 days ago with 8 member flags