Latest Polls after new NIST report

reply to post by SRTkid86

PULL IT!!!

maybe you should take a second to research and read the ties of that phrase and controlled demolitions....


try looking for the answers, that usually works for me....

reply to post by SRTkid86
If all you are doing is watching these forums, and not doing any research on your own then I suggest you start with, a publication by the D.O.D. titled, Improvised munitions. I have done my own research, I will not do yours for you. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the U.S. armed forces? E.O.D. personell use this device to safely dispose of "hung bombs" ,munitions that did not release from the munitons rack carried on the wings of aircraft. A pin is inserted in the munition and it is moved to an isolated area and safely detonated. E.O.D people use that term daily. I have seen and heard it myself.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well then you have not read the statments from CHief Hayden about the fact that they were worried about the buidlings coming down on its own and spreading more fires.

Please show us an example of a fire dept or demo team bringing down a still burning building, comparable in size to WTC7 please. I can find zero examples of a fire dept "pulling" a still burning 40+ story building....EVER. Since you seem to think it is an everyday thing for firefighters to go into burning multistory buildings, and rather than fight fires, set charges or cut beams.

Chief Hayden was indeed worried about the building coming down. That is why he "pulled" everyone away from it, so if it collapsed it would not kill anyone else. A fact that has been proven countless times, and even stated by Chief Hayden himself.

You really should find things out before posting so you do not look so immature.

For someone looking for the truth, you seem to make up a lot.

Originally posted by gavron
Chief Hayden was indeed worried about the building coming down. That is why he "pulled" everyone away from it, so if it collapsed it would not kill anyone else. A fact that has been proven countless times, and even stated by Chief Hayden himself.

Thanks for agreeing with me. Yes the firemen were out of the building BEFORE the call to Silverstein. So the fire commander could not have been talking about the firemen when they were already out of the building when he stated PULL IT.




[edit on 23-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 23-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thanks for agreeing with me. Yes the firemen were out of the building BEFORE the call to Silverstein. So the fire commander could not have been talking about the firemen when they were already out of the building when he stated PULL IT.

So silly, ULTIMA1. You're a silly little guy arent you. Yes you are...yes you are! cootchie cootchie coo!

And is that when you super secret ninja demolitions people went in (no witnesses of course) and planed their charges and used thermite cutters (again no witnesses, just your word).

What these conspiracy people smoke on the weekends is truly amazing.

Originally posted by gavron
So silly, ULTIMA1. You're a silly little guy arent you.

You must be a silly little guy too since you agreed that the firemen were out of the building.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You must be a silly little guy too since you agreed that the firemen were out of the building.

I agreed that they were pulled out of the building by the fire chiefs, because they feared the buildings were going to collapse. Good thing they did too, since they eventually succumbed to the damage, just like the latest NIST report stated. Glad to see this official report come to light.

Originally posted by gavron
I agreed that they were pulled out of the building by the fire chiefs, because they feared the buildings were going to collapse.

Again thanks for agreeing with me that the firemen were out of the building before the call to Silverstein was made.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


...no no, thank YOU for agreeing that the final NIST report is accurate. It shows exactoy what happened that day.

Originally posted by gavron
...no no, thank YOU for agreeing that the final NIST report is accurate.

Well its jsut too bad that the final NIST report has been debunked by an earlier NIST report that stated they failed to recover any steel for testing.

I do not know why NIST does contridicting reports.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by gavron
reply to post by ULTIMA1

 

...no no, thank YOU for agreeing that the final NIST report is accurate.

Come now, gavron. Let's hope that you can see some sense here.

NIST admits all the way through the report that it ESTIMATES variables such as fuel loads and the behaviour of the fires.
NIST admits that it used less than perfect simulations to save on processing time, at the expense of some accuracy in the results.
NIST admits that it can not verify the construction of the buildings.
NIST admits that it did not recover any steel for testing.
NIST uses the words, 'probable' and 'likely' so many times in the report, that they don't mention anything as being definitive or authorative.

NIST GUESSED the conclusion, based on many other guesses to reach that conclusion. The NIST report is not accurate, by their own admission.

Originally posted by gavron
...no no, thank YOU for agreeing that the final NIST report is accurate. It shows exactoy what happened that day.

Also, thanks for showing everyone on here that you have to change subjects when you are debated or proven wrong.

Originally posted by gavron


So silly, ULTIMA1. You're a silly little guy arent you. Yes you are...yes you are! cootchie cootchie coo!

And is that when you super secret ninja demolitions people went in (no witnesses of course) and planed their charges and used thermite cutters (again no witnesses, just your word).

What these conspiracy people smoke on the weekends is truly amazing.

Why are you being so defensive/offensive. Someone can turn around and say the same thing against people who believe the official story.

You're not doing yourself any favors with that post, just making you look like the dude that's losing his edge.

Originally posted by Masisoar
You're not doing yourself any favors with that post, just making you look like the dude that's losing his edge.

Its a sure sign that he has been defeated so he has to resort to anything.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Two questions Roger:

1. What time were the firefighters removed, creating a collapse zone?

2. What time did Silverstein talk to the FDNY?

Thank you.

-TY-

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
1. What time were the firefighters removed, creating a collapse zone?

2. What time did Silverstein talk to the FDNY?

Thank you.

According to Chief Nigro's statement he evacuated the firemen without talking to the owner. Which means they were evacuated before the phone call.

Wow you are amazing, if you would watch the video I just posted you can hear the explosion that came from WTC7 building.

Top this video off with many witnesses claiming they heard explosions in the WTC7 building.

So the question remains. Why can we clearly hear explosions in this video given to us by CNN and why are there so many reports of explosions? This is completely contradictory to what the NIST report is saying.

I watched the 51 sec video you posted plenty of times. I had seen it before too. I don’t hear any explosions clearly. I think there are other clips out there that you could have used to explain your point, but none prove detonations. There were things “exploding” all around them, all day, but that doesn’t mean they were bombs or detonations. People saying they are hearing explosions, or what sounds like explosions, is not that same as hearing detonation blasts... but how else would you explain the sounds?

What the video does show very well is the point that the people onsite knew it was likely coming down soon because of its excessive damage. The fact that CNN (dozens of other news agencies at that point too) were on location, wouldn’t you think that somebody would have gotten better video then this to show a CD? There is absolutely no proof of a CD time & time again, yet your side struggles to keep the dream alive. What will it take to ever make you admit your theories have nothing to support them?

EDITed to add that I don't think the conversation with Silverstein has anything to do with it regardless of exact times.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by Jake the Dog Man]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
1. What time were the firefighters removed, creating a collapse zone?

2. What time did Silverstein talk to the FDNY?

Thank you.

According to Chief Nigro's statement he evacuated the firemen without talking to the owner. Which means they were evacuated before the phone call.

Answer the two questions please. I would like times to both questions.

Thank you,

-TY-

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man

Wow you are amazing, if you would watch the video I just posted you can hear the explosion that came from WTC7 building.

Top this video off with many witnesses claiming they heard explosions in the WTC7 building.

So the question remains. Why can we clearly hear explosions in this video given to us by CNN and why are there so many reports of explosions? This is completely contradictory to what the NIST report is saying.

I watched the 51 sec video you posted plenty of times. I had seen it before too. I don’t hear any explosions clearly. I think there are other clips out there that you could have used to explain your point, but none prove detonations. There were things “exploding” all around them, all day, but that doesn’t mean they were bombs or detonations. People saying they are hearing explosions, or what sounds like explosions, is not that same as hearing detonation blasts... but how else would you explain the sounds?

What the video does show very well is the point that the people onsite knew it was likely coming down soon because of its excessive damage. The fact that CNN (dozens of other news agencies at that point too) were on location, wouldn’t you think that somebody would have gotten better video then this to show a CD? There is absolutely no proof of a CD time & time again, yet your side struggles to keep the dream alive. What will it take to ever make you admit your theories have nothing to support them?

it may not prove detonations but it does prove that "no reports of explosions" is either a blatant lie or a terrible oversight in the investigation. why would they ignore or lie about anyone hearing explosions no matter what or why it was exploding? and if there were explosions going off all day, then surely they are in the NIST report right? i mean those explosions must have been something exploding somewhere right? you would think that might be important when investigating why a building fell down.

DP

[edit on 8/24/2008 by re22666]