Open Letter to Dave Thomas - Page 23

Newtons Bit · 17th October 2010, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

But Larry said: "Maybe the best thing to do is just pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

How did he know the building was about to collapse? How was he able to "order" the evacuation just in time to save those firefighters' lives?

And more stupidly, why would Larry Silverstein have any say whatsoever in whether to pull firefighters or not?

They could visibly see and measure the building leaning.

Quote:

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

ergo · 17th October 2010, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by alienentity

He had no authority to order any evacuation, even in his own building. But he was consulted, or informed, by FDNY - considering the utter mayhem that day, I'd say FDNY was very professional in even taking the time to discuss it on the phone.

Do you realize the more convoluted your arguments get, the more bending over backwards you have to do and finding the 1% "possibility" that somehow always ends up being the only possibility, the further from the more likely truth you are getting? That's Occam's razor. I don't think bedunkers are familiar with it.

BigAl · 17th October 2010, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

How does the term "pull it," and its context: "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse..." refer to "evacuat[ing] the site around the building" ?

36 firemen at WTC7 use "pull" to mean withdraw.

You can confirm that for yourself by finding their names in the spreadsheet linked to below and then finding the full text transcript via the second link and then reading them.

Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...K3QezQ&cad=rja
Full text transcripts for those names: http://graphics8.nytimes.compackages...s_full_01.html

ergo · 17th October 2010, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

They could visibly see and measure the building leaning.

Amazing that he was able to say "pull it" and then they pulled it, and down came the building.

BigAl · 17th October 2010, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Amazing that he was able to say "pull it" and then they pulled it, and down came the building.

36 firemen at WTC7 use "pull" to mean withdraw.

You can confirm that for yourself by finding their names in the spreadsheet linked to below and then finding the full text transcripts via the second link and then reading them.

Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...K3QezQ&cad=rja
Full text transcripts for those names: http://graphics8.nytimes.compackages...s_full_01.html

triforcharity · 17th October 2010, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Building 7 had been evacuated already, so there would have been no search and rescue going on by that time. How does the phrase "pull it" refer to "securing the scene, scene survey, structural observation, fire progression"?

Firefighters must be near the building to do their jobs. They do not have ESP.

Newtons Bit · 17th October 2010, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Amazing that he was able to say "pull it" and then they pulled it, and down came the building.

Yea, those firefighters must have been on steroids to pull that building down. Do you have any idea how much that thing must have weighed?

ergo · 17th October 2010, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

His statement is mostly correct. One can plot the yield strength of steel vs. temperature of that steel.

But temperature is not a type of energy, as you have posted. Nor is it specifically a measurement of thermal energy in a body. If you want to know what the thermal energy in a body is you need to know the mass of the body, the specific heat of the material as well as the temperature. Temperature alone can only be used for qualitative statements, such as "this piece of steel is hotter than that piece of copper". It cannot be used, in itself, to quantitatively judge which piece has more thermal energy.

I know temperature is not a type of energy. Does ozeco know that?

And what relevance does this have to the WTC7 invisi-fires? Perhaps Big Al should answer that one, since he's the one that started us down this silly, irrelevant sidepath.

DGM · 17th October 2010, 10:57 AM

And I thought it was well know that right before a building is about to collapse the FF's all stand around and play with themselves. Silverstein was just confirming the order to begin.

Makes as much sense as ergo's BS.

ergo · 17th October 2010, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Yea, those firefighters must have been on steroids to pull that building down. Do you have any idea how much that thing must have weighed?

Yet, to you, "pull it" means "evacuate the area". I don't know how or where you would get this meaning from.

I don't think you can pull down tall buildings, can you? You need charges for that. Why would it be impossible for the WTC7 to be pre-rigged for destruction as part of its design plan, given the agencies it housed and the sensitive material it contained therein?

beachnut · 17th October 2010, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

But Larry said: "Maybe the best thing to do is just pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

How did he know the building was about to collapse? How was he able to "order" the evacuation just in time to save those firefighters' lives?

And more stupidly, why would Larry Silverstein have any say whatsoever in whether to pull firefighters or not?

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html Read more and make up your own mind.

You are allowed to believe moronic delusions of CD, who cares if you want to remain in ignorance? I am working on a new speaker, and your CD delusion will not make a dent in my design, or will your delusions make a difference in the world. Your CD delusion is based on ignorance, lies and hearsay. You can't use your delusion to make any point other than prove you don't know much about science,or 911. Larry's statement is a composite of what he believes happened on 911, and he is making the statement MONTHS after 911 and you are gullible and fall for the lies of 911 truth. If you like the idiotic delusions run with it, it is self-critiquing.

Larry can't decide what the fire department does! Larry is not part of the decision, Larry is actually telling us what happen. They told Larry what they were going to do. They pulled firefighting efforts, and all parents of 911 truthers need to pull the funding for higher education, it will fail.

In a fire, the fire department owns the building; not Larry. BTW, the fire department gives back the building when they are done. It does not matter what Larry said a year later! You are using an old quote and lack the comprehension skills to understand what it means. Proof, you have to ask stupid questions.

BigAl · 17th October 2010, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

I know temperature is not a type of energy. Does ozeco know that?

And what relevance does this have to the WTC7 invisi-fires? Perhaps Big Al should answer that one, since he's the one that started us down this silly, irrelevant sidepath.

The last time I tried, I couldn't see past the window frame of an 8th floor window from street level.

The floors of WTC7 were *********** huge and there were plenty of interior walls that obstructed vision if they did get a ladder truck, which I don't think was used at that building.

Edited by LashL:

Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor

ergo · 17th October 2010, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by beachnut

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html Read more and make up your own mind.

I did. It's an extremely convoluted argument. Most likely not the real answer.

ergo · 17th October 2010, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by BigAl

The last time I tried, I couldn't see past the window frame of an 8th floor window from street level.

The floors of WTC7 were *********** huge and there were plenty of interior walls that obstructed vision if they did get a ladder truck, which I don't think was used at that building.

Does not explain the relevance of your distinction between "heat" and "temperature", but I wasn't really expecting you to ever be able to follow that through.

Fire seeks combustibles. WTC 7 "burned", according to you, for 6 hours. Where are the fires?

BigAl · 17th October 2010, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Yet, to you, "pull it" means "evacuate the area". I don't know how or where you would get this meaning from.
?

The firemen.

36 firemen at WTC7 use "pull" to mean withdraw.

You can confirm that for yourself by finding their names in the spreadsheet linked to below and then finding the full text transcript via the second link and then reading them.

Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...K3QezQ&cad=rja
Full text transcripts for those names: http://graphics8.nytimes.compackages...s_full_01.html

alienentity · 17th October 2010, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Amazing that he was able to say "pull it" and then they pulled it, and down came the building.

You don't know what he said on 9/11. All you know is what he recalls saying later in 2002. Perhaps he worded it differently on the day.

You are chasing your own tale, trapped in semantics. Keep spinning, maybe you'll get dizzy and fall over.

BigAl · 17th October 2010, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Does not explain the relevance of your distinction between "heat" and "temperature", but I wasn't really expecting you to ever be able to follow that through.

Fire seeks combustibles. WTC 7 "burned", according to you, for 6 hours. Where are the fires?

The last time I tried, I couldn't see past the window frame of an 8th floor window from street level.

The floors of WTC7 were *********** huge and there were plenty of interior walls that obstructed vision if they did get a ladder truck, which I don't think was used at that building.

Edited by LashL:

Edited to properly mask profanity. See Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.

beachnut · 17th October 2010, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Do you realize the more convoluted your arguments get, the more bending over backwards you have to do and finding the 1% "possibility" that somehow always ends up being the only possibility, the further from the more likely truth you are getting? That's Occam's razor. I don't think bedunkers are familiar with it.

You have no clue what Occam's razor means or how to use it; like physics, temperature and voltage; no clue.

With your inability to comprehend what Larry meant, it is a simple deduction you are able to support moronic lies and idiotic delusion with ease.

Go ahead, use "pull it" for your smoking gun of silent explosives and have fun being all you can be, a regurgitate of lies and delusions.

Mancman · 17th October 2010, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

But Larry said: "Maybe the best thing to do is just pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

How did he know the building was about to collapse? How was he able to "order" the evacuation just in time to save those firefighters' lives?

And more stupidly, why would Larry Silverstein have any say whatsoever in whether to pull firefighters or not?

And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
they

Who are 'they'? The FDNY. The FDNY made the decision to pull.

DGM · 17th October 2010, 11:21 AM

I can't believe we're doing "pull it" again. Next thing you know some bird is going to chime it saying Silverstein "made out like a bandit"

triforcharity · 17th October 2010, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Yet, to you, "pull it" means "evacuate the area". I don't know how or where you would get this meaning from.

Firefighters who use the term regularly.

Originally Posted by ergo

I don't think you can pull down tall buildings, can you?

You need charges for that.

No, you can. Big heavy steel cables and big heavy equipment. No charges necessary.

Originally Posted by ergo

Why would it be impossible for the WTC7 to be pre-rigged for destruction as part of its design plan, given the agencies it housed and the sensitive material it contained therein?

Because that is a stupid suggestion. Not to mention, explosives degrade in a matter of hours, not years.

ergo · 17th October 2010, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by BigAl

The last time I tried, I couldn't see past the window frame of an 8th floor window from street level.

The floors of WTC7 were *********** huge and there were plenty of interior walls that obstructed vision if they did get a ladder truck, which I don't think was used at that building.

So fires that burned for 6 hours kept themselves in the mysterious inner sanctum of wtc7? You may want to take this point up with Dave Rogers, who says that we should believe the ff testimonies that NIST did not include in their report, the ones available on the wtc7lies site, that state that the south wall was a flaming inferno, and was so right up to and during the collapse.

Me, I couldn't care less. Most people by now know that fire doesn't bring down steel-framed buildings, and definitely little smouldering fires don't, and that a statement that uses the term "pull it" in relation to then witnessing the collapse of a building does suggest some volition on the part of the parties involved.

T.A.M. · 17th October 2010, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Yet, to you, "pull it" means "evacuate the area". I don't know how or where you would get this meaning from.

IIRC, Silverstein spokes person clarified the statement, and in it, it was said, he meant to pull the firefighters back from the building. So even if they didn't rely on what seems only logical to most of us, they could have gotten this idea from the Silverstein rep himself.

Of course you will handwave this off as cover up by big bad Larry, right?

TAM

beachnut · 17th October 2010, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

Does not explain the relevance of your distinction between "heat" and "temperature", but I wasn't really expecting you to ever be able to follow that through.

Fire seeks combustibles. WTC 7 "burned", according to you, for 6 hours. Where are the fires?

You have delusions about 911. You can't find fire in WTC 7, you are not able to do reality based research, and you can't comprehend what you read.

You have no idea what temperate means, and keep proving it. How is physics and voltage coming?

You need to study more, and try again next year. You are not learning, you are regressing into ignorance and repeating lies.

Where are the fires? Proves you are a troll, you can't comprehend 911, and you prove it with each failed post.

Why did not not fight fires in a building they feared would collapse? Critical thinking?

It is time to pull it! Pull posting to your idiotic questions, and moronic delusions.

Originally Posted by ergo

...
Me, I couldn't care less. Most people by now know that fire doesn't bring down steel-framed buildings, and definitely little smouldering fires don't, and that a statement that uses the term "pull it" in relation to then witnessing the collapse of a building does suggest some volition on the part of the parties involved.

Total nonsense.

And fire does not do anything to steel... You are as good at this as you are at physics, temperature, and voltage.

triforcharity · 17th October 2010, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

Most people by now know that fire doesn't bring down steel-framed buildings,

Really? The Charleston SC Fire department might disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CharlestonFire1.jpg

Yeah, that is a steel framed building that collapsed and killed 8 firefighters from CFD.

How about the Kader Toy Factory?

Sight and Sound Theature?

Guess what? All were steel framed structures, all collapsed from fire alone.

Originally Posted by ergo

and definitely little smouldering fires don't,

Strawman.

Originally Posted by ergo

and that a statement that uses the term "pull it" in relation to then witnessing the collapse of a building does suggest some volition on the part of the parties involved.

Sorry, you're confused. Again.

Have we ever talked before?

Newtons Bit · 17th October 2010, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

I know temperature is not a type of energy. Does ozeco know that?

And what relevance does this have to the WTC7 invisi-fires? Perhaps Big Al should answer that one, since he's the one that started us down this silly, irrelevant sidepath.

So you think there are no fires now. What do you think caused the smoke?

GlennB · 17th October 2010, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

Most people by now know that fire doesn't bring down steel-framed buildings, ....

It would be trivial to prove you wrong, but your track record shows you'll just dance off on another tangent like a flea on speed.

BigAl · 17th October 2010, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

So fires that burned for 6 hours kept themselves in the mysterious inner sanctum of wtc7?

Yup. The firemen that were last in WTC7 reported them. Read NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 Pages 299-304

40+ firemen that report fire and damage to WTC7. 31 anticipate collapse due to fire and damage.

Grizzly Bear · 17th October 2010, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

So you think there are no fires now. What do you think caused the smoke?

[bs]Cappuccino Maker[/bs]

Sword_Of_Truth · 17th October 2010, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Funny, I thought that energy was expressed as Joules, or Calories, not Farenheit or Celsius.

TAM

Edit: sorry, forgot to mention BTU and kW Hour.

TAM

And newtons.

ergo · 17th October 2010, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

So you think there are no fires now. What do you think caused the smoke?

No, I definitely did see pictures of flames in a few windows. I'm just wondering how an entire side of a 47-storey building can be in flames and not a single image was caught of it.

This was a crime scene, after all.

For the discussion on smoke vs. fire, you can start here. Heavy smoke indicates incomplete combustion. Incomplete combustion suggests not a raging fire.

beachnut · 17th October 2010, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

No, I definitely did see pictures of flames ....

Is 350 volts more energy than 12 volts?

There were no flames? Prove it.

Newtons Bit · 17th October 2010, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

No, I definitely did see pictures of flames in a few windows. I'm just wondering how an entire side of a 47-storey building can be in flames and not a single image was caught of it.

This was a crime scene, after all.

For the discussion on smoke vs. fire, you can start here. Heavy smoke indicates incomplete combustion. Incomplete combustion suggests not a raging fire.

Then why did you call it, "WTC7 invisi-fires"?

Sword_Of_Truth · 17th October 2010, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

No, I definitely did see pictures of flames in a few windows. I'm just wondering how an entire side of a 47-storey building can be in flames and not a single image was caught of it.

Photographers and other civilians were evacuated from the area.

Quote:

This was a crime scene, after all.

No. It was an imminent collapse scene.

Originally Posted by ergo

Heavy smoke indicates incomplete combustion. Incomplete combustion suggests not a raging fire.

Absolutely false. Debunked over and over and over again many times before. Only repeated by autistic downs syndrome 9/11 truthers with fetal alcohol syndrome and severe head injuries.

Here's a picture.

December 2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire in the UK

Heavy smoke = heavy combustion.

ergo · 17th October 2010, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Then why did you call it, "WTC7 invisi-fires"?

Because a few flames coming out of a few windows does not suggest a fire strong enough to collapse a building.

Because there are apparently claims that the entire south wall was in flames but not a single image of this, only smoke.

Did smoke bring down the building?

Newtons Bit · 17th October 2010, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

Because a few flames coming out of a few windows does not suggest a fire strong enough to collapse a building.

Because there are apparently claims that the entire south wall was in flames but not a single image of this, only smoke.

Did smoke bring down the building?

What causes smoke?

ergo · 17th October 2010, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Photographers and other civilians were evacuated from the area.

That would stop absolutely everyone who was south of the WTC site from taking videos or pictures of WTC7?

Police and fire personnel were there. It was a crime scene. You think they weren't taking pictures?

Quote:

Absolutely false. Debunked over and over and over again many times before.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/s/smoke.htm

I removed your insulting references to people with developmental disabilities.

Quote:

Here's a picture.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...uncefield2.jpg
December 2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire in the UK

Yeah, and what's burning here?

ergo · 17th October 2010, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

What causes smoke?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/s/smoke.htm

Newtons Bit · 17th October 2010, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/s/smoke.htm

You can't say fire? Is it really that hard for you to admit that the giant plumes of smoke pouring off of WTC7 were caused by fire?

ergo · 17th October 2010, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

You can't say fire? Is it really that hard for you to admit that the giant plumes of smoke pouring off of WTC7 were caused by fire?

What giant plumes of smoke? Yes, smoke indicates some fire. At the beginning of a fire you'll see a lot of smoke, but if all you can see from a fire that's been burning for a while is thick billows and no flames, it indicates a smouldering fire, not an active one.

17th October 2010, 10:49 AM	#881
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,890	Originally Posted by ergo But Larry said: "Maybe the best thing to do is just pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." How did he know the building was about to collapse? How was he able to "order" the evacuation just in time to save those firefighters' lives? And more stupidly, why would Larry Silverstein have any say whatsoever in whether to pull firefighters or not? They could visibly see and measure the building leaning. Quote: Deputy Chief Peter Hayden Division 1 - 33 years ...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,890	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

17th October 2010, 10:49 AM	#882
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854	Originally Posted by alienentity He had no authority to order any evacuation, even in his own building. But he was consulted, or informed, by FDNY - considering the utter mayhem that day, I'd say FDNY was very professional in even taking the time to discuss it on the phone. Do you realize the more convoluted your arguments get, the more bending over backwards you have to do and finding the 1% "possibility" that somehow always ends up being the only possibility, the further from the more likely truth you are getting? That's Occam's razor. I don't think bedunkers are familiar with it.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854

17th October 2010, 10:50 AM	#883
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by ergo How does the term "pull it," and its context: "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse..." refer to "evacuat[ing] the site around the building" ? 36 firemen at WTC7 use "pull" to mean withdraw. You can confirm that for yourself by finding their names in the spreadsheet linked to below and then finding the full text transcript via the second link and then reading them. Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...K3QezQ&cad=rja Full text transcripts for those names: http://graphics8.nytimes.compackages...s_full_01.html
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

17th October 2010, 10:50 AM	#884
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit They could visibly see and measure the building leaning. Amazing that he was able to say "pull it" and then they pulled it, and down came the building.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854

17th October 2010, 10:53 AM	#885
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by ergo Amazing that he was able to say "pull it" and then they pulled it, and down came the building. 36 firemen at WTC7 use "pull" to mean withdraw. You can confirm that for yourself by finding their names in the spreadsheet linked to below and then finding the full text transcripts via the second link and then reading them. Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...K3QezQ&cad=rja Full text transcripts for those names: http://graphics8.nytimes.compackages...s_full_01.html
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

17th October 2010, 10:53 AM	#886
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Originally Posted by ergo Building 7 had been evacuated already, so there would have been no search and rescue going on by that time. How does the phrase "pull it" refer to "securing the scene, scene survey, structural observation, fire progression"? Firefighters must be near the building to do their jobs. They do not have ESP.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

17th October 2010, 10:54 AM	#887
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,890	Originally Posted by ergo Amazing that he was able to say "pull it" and then they pulled it, and down came the building. Yea, those firefighters must have been on steroids to pull that building down. Do you have any idea how much that thing must have weighed?
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,890	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

17th October 2010, 10:54 AM	#888
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit His statement is mostly correct. One can plot the yield strength of steel vs. temperature of that steel. But temperature is not a type of energy, as you have posted. Nor is it specifically a measurement of thermal energy in a body. If you want to know what the thermal energy in a body is you need to know the mass of the body, the specific heat of the material as well as the temperature. Temperature alone can only be used for qualitative statements, such as "this piece of steel is hotter than that piece of copper". It cannot be used, in itself, to quantitatively judge which piece has more thermal energy. I know temperature is not a type of energy. Does ozeco know that? And what relevance does this have to the WTC7 invisi-fires? Perhaps Big Al should answer that one, since he's the one that started us down this silly, irrelevant sidepath.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854

17th October 2010, 10:57 AM	#889
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,324	And I thought it was well know that right before a building is about to collapse the FF's all stand around and play with themselves. Silverstein was just confirming the order to begin. Makes as much sense as ergo's BS.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

17th October 2010, 10:59 AM	#890
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit Yea, those firefighters must have been on steroids to pull that building down. Do you have any idea how much that thing must have weighed? Yet, to you, "pull it" means "evacuate the area". I don't know how or where you would get this meaning from. I don't think you can pull down tall buildings, can you? You need charges for that. Why would it be impossible for the WTC7 to be pre-rigged for destruction as part of its design plan, given the agencies it housed and the sensitive material it contained therein?
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854

17th October 2010, 11:01 AM	#891
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,904	Originally Posted by ergo But Larry said: "Maybe the best thing to do is just pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." How did he know the building was about to collapse? How was he able to "order" the evacuation just in time to save those firefighters' lives? And more stupidly, why would Larry Silverstein have any say whatsoever in whether to pull firefighters or not? http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html Read more and make up your own mind. You are allowed to believe moronic delusions of CD, who cares if you want to remain in ignorance? I am working on a new speaker, and your CD delusion will not make a dent in my design, or will your delusions make a difference in the world. Your CD delusion is based on ignorance, lies and hearsay. You can't use your delusion to make any point other than prove you don't know much about science,or 911. Larry's statement is a composite of what he believes happened on 911, and he is making the statement MONTHS after 911 and you are gullible and fall for the lies of 911 truth. If you like the idiotic delusions run with it, it is self-critiquing. Larry can't decide what the fire department does! Larry is not part of the decision, Larry is actually telling us what happen. They told Larry what they were going to do. They pulled firefighting efforts, and all parents of 911 truthers need to pull the funding for higher education, it will fail. In a fire, the fire department owns the building; not Larry. BTW, the fire department gives back the building when they are done. It does not matter what Larry said a year later! You are using an old quote and lack the comprehension skills to understand what it means. Proof, you have to ask stupid questions.

17th October 2010, 11:04 AM	#893
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854	Originally Posted by beachnut http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html Read more and make up your own mind. I did. It's an extremely convoluted argument. Most likely not the real answer.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854

17th October 2010, 11:06 AM	#894
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854	Originally Posted by BigAl The last time I tried, I couldn't see past the window frame of an 8th floor window from street level. The floors of WTC7 were *********** huge and there were plenty of interior walls that obstructed vision if they did get a ladder truck, which I don't think was used at that building. Does not explain the relevance of your distinction between "heat" and "temperature", but I wasn't really expecting you to ever be able to follow that through. Fire seeks combustibles. WTC 7 "burned", according to you, for 6 hours. Where are the fires?
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854	Last edited by LashL; 21st October 2010 at 09:49 AM. Reason: to properly mask profanity in quote

17th October 2010, 11:08 AM	#895
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by ergo Yet, to you, "pull it" means "evacuate the area". I don't know how or where you would get this meaning from. ? The firemen. 36 firemen at WTC7 use "pull" to mean withdraw. You can confirm that for yourself by finding their names in the spreadsheet linked to below and then finding the full text transcript via the second link and then reading them. Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...K3QezQ&cad=rja Full text transcripts for those names: http://graphics8.nytimes.compackages...s_full_01.html
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

17th October 2010, 11:11 AM	#896
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by ergo Amazing that he was able to say "pull it" and then they pulled it, and down came the building. You don't know what he said on 9/11. All you know is what he recalls saying later in 2002. Perhaps he worded it differently on the day. You are chasing your own tale, trapped in semantics. Keep spinning, maybe you'll get dizzy and fall over.
	__________________ Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

17th October 2010, 11:12 AM	#898
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,904	Originally Posted by ergo Do you realize the more convoluted your arguments get, the more bending over backwards you have to do and finding the 1% "possibility" that somehow always ends up being the only possibility, the further from the more likely truth you are getting? That's Occam's razor. I don't think bedunkers are familiar with it. You have no clue what Occam's razor means or how to use it; like physics, temperature and voltage; no clue. With your inability to comprehend what Larry meant, it is a simple deduction you are able to support moronic lies and idiotic delusion with ease. Go ahead, use "pull it" for your smoking gun of silent explosives and have fun being all you can be, a regurgitate of lies and delusions.

17th October 2010, 11:14 AM	#899
Mancman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 1,010	Originally Posted by ergo But Larry said: "Maybe the best thing to do is just pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." How did he know the building was about to collapse? How was he able to "order" the evacuation just in time to save those firefighters' lives? And more stupidly, why would Larry Silverstein have any say whatsoever in whether to pull firefighters or not? And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." they Who are 'they'? The FDNY. The FDNY made the decision to pull.
	__________________ R.I.P Dr. Adequate

17th October 2010, 11:21 AM	#900
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,324	I can't believe we're doing "pull it" again. Next thing you know some bird is going to chime it saying Silverstein "made out like a bandit"
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

17th October 2010, 11:27 AM	#901
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Originally Posted by ergo Yet, to you, "pull it" means "evacuate the area". I don't know how or where you would get this meaning from. Firefighters who use the term regularly. Originally Posted by ergo I don't think you can pull down tall buildings, can you? You need charges for that. No, you can. Big heavy steel cables and big heavy equipment. No charges necessary. Originally Posted by ergo Why would it be impossible for the WTC7 to be pre-rigged for destruction as part of its design plan, given the agencies it housed and the sensitive material it contained therein? Because that is a stupid suggestion. Not to mention, explosives degrade in a matter of hours, not years.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

17th October 2010, 11:43 AM	#902
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854	Originally Posted by BigAl The last time I tried, I couldn't see past the window frame of an 8th floor window from street level. The floors of WTC7 were *********** huge and there were plenty of interior walls that obstructed vision if they did get a ladder truck, which I don't think was used at that building. So fires that burned for 6 hours kept themselves in the mysterious inner sanctum of wtc7? You may want to take this point up with Dave Rogers, who says that we should believe the ff testimonies that NIST did not include in their report, the ones available on the wtc7lies site, that state that the south wall was a flaming inferno, and was so right up to and during the collapse. Me, I couldn't care less. Most people by now know that fire doesn't bring down steel-framed buildings, and definitely little smouldering fires don't, and that a statement that uses the term "pull it" in relation to then witnessing the collapse of a building does suggest some volition on the part of the parties involved.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854	Last edited by LashL; 21st October 2010 at 09:51 AM. Reason: to properly mask profanity in quote

17th October 2010, 11:56 AM	#903
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by ergo Yet, to you, "pull it" means "evacuate the area". I don't know how or where you would get this meaning from. IIRC, Silverstein spokes person clarified the statement, and in it, it was said, he meant to pull the firefighters back from the building. So even if they didn't rely on what seems only logical to most of us, they could have gotten this idea from the Silverstein rep himself. Of course you will handwave this off as cover up by big bad Larry, right? TAM

17th October 2010, 12:09 PM	#904
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,904	Originally Posted by ergo Does not explain the relevance of your distinction between "heat" and "temperature", but I wasn't really expecting you to ever be able to follow that through. Fire seeks combustibles. WTC 7 "burned", according to you, for 6 hours. Where are the fires? You have delusions about 911. You can't find fire in WTC 7, you are not able to do reality based research, and you can't comprehend what you read. You have no idea what temperate means, and keep proving it. How is physics and voltage coming? You need to study more, and try again next year. You are not learning, you are regressing into ignorance and repeating lies. Where are the fires? Proves you are a troll, you can't comprehend 911, and you prove it with each failed post. Why did not not fight fires in a building they feared would collapse? Critical thinking? It is time to pull it! Pull posting to your idiotic questions, and moronic delusions. Originally Posted by ergo ... Me, I couldn't care less. Most people by now know that fire doesn't bring down steel-framed buildings, and definitely little smouldering fires don't, and that a statement that uses the term "pull it" in relation to then witnessing the collapse of a building does suggest some volition on the part of the parties involved. Total nonsense. And fire does not do anything to steel... You are as good at this as you are at physics, temperature, and voltage.

17th October 2010, 12:24 PM	#905
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Originally Posted by ergo Most people by now know that fire doesn't bring down steel-framed buildings, Really? The Charleston SC Fire department might disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CharlestonFire1.jpg Yeah, that is a steel framed building that collapsed and killed 8 firefighters from CFD. How about the Kader Toy Factory? Sight and Sound Theature? Guess what? All were steel framed structures, all collapsed from fire alone. Originally Posted by ergo and definitely little smouldering fires don't, Strawman. Originally Posted by ergo and that a statement that uses the term "pull it" in relation to then witnessing the collapse of a building does suggest some volition on the part of the parties involved. Sorry, you're confused. Again. Have we ever talked before?
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

17th October 2010, 12:28 PM	#906
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,890	Originally Posted by ergo I know temperature is not a type of energy. Does ozeco know that? And what relevance does this have to the WTC7 invisi-fires? Perhaps Big Al should answer that one, since he's the one that started us down this silly, irrelevant sidepath. So you think there are no fires now. What do you think caused the smoke?
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,890	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

17th October 2010, 12:28 PM	#907
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 8,944	Originally Posted by ergo Most people by now know that fire doesn't bring down steel-framed buildings, .... It would be trivial to prove you wrong, but your track record shows you'll just dance off on another tangent like a flea on speed.

17th October 2010, 12:31 PM	#908
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by ergo So fires that burned for 6 hours kept themselves in the mysterious inner sanctum of wtc7? Yup. The firemen that were last in WTC7 reported them. Read NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 Pages 299-304 40+ firemen that report fire and damage to WTC7. 31 anticipate collapse due to fire and damage.
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

17th October 2010, 01:17 PM	#909
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,690	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit So you think there are no fires now. What do you think caused the smoke? [bs]Cappuccino Maker[/bs]
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,690	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D

17th October 2010, 02:18 PM	#910
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by T.A.M. Funny, I thought that energy was expressed as Joules, or Calories, not Farenheit or Celsius. TAM Edit: sorry, forgot to mention BTU and kW Hour. TAM And newtons.

17th October 2010, 03:14 PM	#911
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit So you think there are no fires now. What do you think caused the smoke? No, I definitely did see pictures of flames in a few windows. I'm just wondering how an entire side of a 47-storey building can be in flames and not a single image was caught of it. This was a crime scene, after all. For the discussion on smoke vs. fire, you can start here. Heavy smoke indicates incomplete combustion. Incomplete combustion suggests not a raging fire.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854

17th October 2010, 03:21 PM	#912
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,904	Originally Posted by ergo No, I definitely did see pictures of flames .... Is 350 volts more energy than 12 volts? There were no flames? Prove it.

17th October 2010, 03:41 PM	#913
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,890	Originally Posted by ergo No, I definitely did see pictures of flames in a few windows. I'm just wondering how an entire side of a 47-storey building can be in flames and not a single image was caught of it. This was a crime scene, after all. For the discussion on smoke vs. fire, you can start here. Heavy smoke indicates incomplete combustion. Incomplete combustion suggests not a raging fire. Then why did you call it, "WTC7 invisi-fires"?
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,890	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

17th October 2010, 03:47 PM	#914
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by ergo No, I definitely did see pictures of flames in a few windows. I'm just wondering how an entire side of a 47-storey building can be in flames and not a single image was caught of it. Photographers and other civilians were evacuated from the area. Quote: This was a crime scene, after all. No. It was an imminent collapse scene. Originally Posted by ergo Heavy smoke indicates incomplete combustion. Incomplete combustion suggests not a raging fire. Absolutely false. Debunked over and over and over again many times before. Only repeated by autistic downs syndrome 9/11 truthers with fetal alcohol syndrome and severe head injuries. Here's a picture. December 2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire in the UK Heavy smoke = heavy combustion.

17th October 2010, 03:52 PM	#915
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit Then why did you call it, "WTC7 invisi-fires"? Because a few flames coming out of a few windows does not suggest a fire strong enough to collapse a building. Because there are apparently claims that the entire south wall was in flames but not a single image of this, only smoke. Did smoke bring down the building?
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854

17th October 2010, 03:55 PM	#916
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,890	Originally Posted by ergo Because a few flames coming out of a few windows does not suggest a fire strong enough to collapse a building. Because there are apparently claims that the entire south wall was in flames but not a single image of this, only smoke. Did smoke bring down the building? What causes smoke?
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,890	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

17th October 2010, 03:59 PM	#917
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth Photographers and other civilians were evacuated from the area. That would stop absolutely everyone who was south of the WTC site from taking videos or pictures of WTC7? Police and fire personnel were there. It was a crime scene. You think they weren't taking pictures? Quote: Absolutely false. Debunked over and over and over again many times before. http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/s/smoke.htm I removed your insulting references to people with developmental disabilities. Quote: Here's a picture. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...uncefield2.jpg December 2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire in the UK Yeah, and what's burning here?
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854