ok...if you were half of what you say u are you would have understood. you see what you need to see but are blinded from the emotion and human nature. you have a fucked up sense of people. you have good thoughts but no sense of what people are about, alot of smart people dont have that. its called faith.

i'm an atheist that's y i dont have faith. and about this whole human nature thing about ppl being guilty feeling guilty for it and ppl not wanting to go along with it or what not (argument was brought up a long time ago), i'll use another historical example for this. did you ever learn about the holocaust? the 1000's of officers at the camps that murdered 11 million ppl in the end? the einsatzgruppen who execution-style shot 100's of thousands of russian jews with a bullet to the head? in my mind, it's happened b4, therefore it's possible so it can happen again. i don't have school today but tomorrow i'll talk to mr. warwick (the physics teacher) about these claims and see if he agrees...

im not talking about religious faith. faith that people in general are good. if that was untrue why would people help each other? ever stop to help someone out? change a tire, ect...?people do these things all the time. i believe in RAK. random acts of kindness. by human nature we are good, thats why its so hard to believe that someone could do such a horrific thing with out de humanizing (brain washing) muslims into this way of life that foes on for generations. the only way to stop these acts are to educate the population and get them away from unsettleing thoughts. i come from a bad neighborhood, most of my family is from spanish harlem and the rest from jersey. the only family reunion that side of the family gets is when there is a parole hearing. so im more street smart then book smart, people in general are trust worthy then they should be so i dont think that a entire goverment would be able to keep things secret. too many people involved.

for example: if you wanted to kill someone say you neighbor for fucking your wife. you dont do it right away....you wait years maybe 5-10 years keep up on him...know where he lives...get a gun and cap him one day while at a light. or kick his door in at 1am and put him down.

now what does this have to do with anything....most people dont think or act in this fashion...most people are ...nice and trusting....when you go to the store how many times do you look over your shoulder? how many time do you in the store? why dont you keep a look out for someone to stick you in the store..you feel safe, secure....why? why wont the store let you get hurt? so they dont lose a customer? no....the store dont want to lose a customer but they will lose more then one customer because of it. they want you to have .faith that they are there for you they want your trust...you see the gov as big tobacco....but even the big tobacco company had snitches....the gov is power hungqy they are back stabbers and will cut you neck in a second if they got a chance. thats why there sre no secrets in the gov. look at UFO's...logically somewhere in the universe there has to be life...odds are in that favor. odds are there is intelligent life... the gov knows it thats why they deny it and dont do shit about it...do i believe in abuctions, or if they are here now...who the hell knows i dont know enough to care. just know that its leaky area

you're right, they can't keep a secret but they CAN keep a secret better than you think. what i've been trying to say is that the people who know are labeled conspiracy nuts and ignored. THAT'S the government's way of keeping a secret. label all the poeple who know the truth as conspiracy nuts and kill the whistleblowers before they reach the masses.

OMG! another humanbeing with common sense! Praise the lord! I happen to be somewhat of a physics nut too exclusive and i know that there are many things, infact, majority of things in life that we cannot explain! I say prove to me it was a bomb! Why do you automatically jump to a bomb?

Ha! You say no one regretted doing what the did in the holocuast! OMG! WRONG!!!!
Germany as a country has apologized to the rest of the world, they feel horrible for what they did. THey learned from there mistakes and chances are they will not do it again. 6 Million jews died becuase of one man's ambition. It was mob mentality, follow the crowd. The German people were looking for a way out of depression and Hitler was they only way. They had faith and believed in him and followed him to the end of the earth. Kind of scary how one man can change the lives of millions. He was a genious, he brainwashed his people into believing he was right, all else was wrong. Don't try and tell me that no Germans felt true guilt and regrett for the holocaust.

HAHAAHHAHHA! So why havn't they killed you yet? They government just doesn't go around killing people! That is insane, i do admit, they do some pretty evil stuff but they won't kill you. They will just break the 4th amendment and jail you until you shut up.

There is a difference between suspicious citizen and conspiracy nut. Suspicious citizens have ideas that are reasonable and have real evidence. Conspiracy nuts are blinded by truth, they only see what they want. All conspiracy nuts have is circumstantial evidence, which for the most part is bogus. The truth will set you free though.

actually the gov. does nothing when it lies. bill clinton is prime example "cannot confirm or deny..." rarely do they just lie. ufo cannot confirm or deny, just about everything they dont want he public to know about they give on answer. where i live (the land i live on infact!) is more toxic then love canal. the atomic bomb was constructed (part of it) 100 yards away from my door. the contamination is horrible. they dont ever say its not safe to live on but they say there is contamination. the same trick the devil uses (if you believe in hell) to make it easier to sin. if the devil stood in tyour doorway you would never sin, so he makes you believe he dont exist...

well anyways they cannot even keep something to themselves none can.

wrong....take ruby ridge as an example. they will kill you...and look at waco for a gov. cover up. notice these things they couldnt cover....no one can keep a secret if there is more then one person with knowlege of it.

sorry to double post....

2 examples of people killed: John O'neill (whistleblower of W199i, resigned from the FBI, went public, was killed on 9/11 (his first day on the job) after accepting a job in the north? tower...), and Sen. Paul Wellstone (the only patriot in the senate with balls enough to say that shit was wrong... he was HATED by the bush administration, died in a plane crash...)

thought Druid settled this awhile ago

never said he didnt... im simply presenting what happened to the guy who went public with W199i.

oh...ok
just to be honest....he could have been killed for fucking someones wife too ya know.

I have read the posts here with interest.. I respect the research you and others have done Exclusive...at least it is a lot more than most do before expousing statements that are simply not true.

That said, I was at the Pentagon about 3 minutes after the plane hit. I ran there from my office. I am a criminal investigator with the Department of Defense and I spent the next 36 hours and the following 4 months doing witness interviews of the attack and spending 15 hours a day inside the destruction of the Pentagon pulling out pieces of airplane, removing bodies and body parts of the terrorists and the victims, and collecting evidence.

The reliability of witness accounts aside, not one witness, whether it be pedestrians, cabbies, civilians, military officers or others, disputed the facts as set out in what has become the official version. I saw security video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. I was in the Pentagon minutes after the plane hit.

The plane crashed into the Pentagon at high speed at virtually ground level at impact--although it was descending quickly from a fairly high altitude. Its fuel tanks were almost full. The Pentagon has bomb resistant windows--however, from the inside/out, not the outside/in. The Pentagon is a virtual fortress of concrete rings, fortified steel and rebar. These elements combined to create an incredible explosion that left only small pieces of plane on the inside, bigger pieces outside. The Pentagon is divided into wedges. The Pentagon was and is undergoing a massive multi year renovation. The plane hit across one recently renovated section and one 'old' section. Even though the Pentagon appears to be long spans of material, it is instead multiple sections 'pieced together' for lack of a better explanation from an expert. I saw all of this myself. This may in part explain your statement that the cavity left behind appeared to be a cross section.

I personally saw/collected hundreds of pieces of plane. Without going into detail of what may not already be publicly known--your theory is simply not true.

I am not a plane, building or explosives expert. I am an investigator. I will tell you without question a plane--not a missile, slammed into the Pentagon and killed a lot of people. It was tragic, it was chaotic, and it was an act of war. It was a helpless feeling and I had no way to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. That is, until 2003 when I was asked to go to Iraq and I did.

I don't denigrate the opinions here. Opinion and freedom of thought, expression and will are exactly what our wonderful country represents and encourages. I'm just trying to help set a small part of the record straight.

Res

that's respectable but one thing that boters me about the pentagon is they have NOT released any footage other than 5 small resolution frames of security... if a plane really did hit the pentagon... where's the footage? and can u draw a quick diagram of how the plane hit please? thanks...

PROOF THAT PULLING A BUILDING MEANS DEMOLISHING IT! I WATCHED A CLIP FROM THAT SAME PBS DOCUMENTARY AND TRANSCRIBED IT. HERE'S THE TRANSCRIPTION:

Narrator: By Mid-december, the department of design and construction had leveled World Trade Center buildings 4 and 5.
*PHONE RINGING*
Luis Mendes(Department of Design and Construction): Hello? O they're getting ready to pull building 6
Luis(in an interview): We had to be very careful about how we demolished building 6. We were worried about the building 6 coming down and then damaging the (slurred) so we wanted that building to fall within a certain area.
Engineer: There's a certain excitement in the air about bringing the last structure down at the World Trade Center.
*Shows building 6 being demolished then the engineers cheering*

IS THAT PROOF ENOUGH THAT 'PULL IT' MEANS TAKE DOWN THE BUILDING AND NOT THAT BS EXPLANATION THAT YOU GAVE!?

omfg bend over and grab your shoulders and pull your head from your ass. according to the FEMA report Ch5 on WTC 7 it all makes sense. look at how the building was built. all screwed up because of how the building was built around the other building....sigh....

WTF DO YOU MEAN!!!??? ACCORDING TO THE FEMA REPORT (fema's a government agency btw so garunteed that 1/2 the stuff at least in that report is bullshit :/) THEY DONT KNOW WHAT CAUSED BUILDING 7 TO COLLAPSE AND THEY ASSUME IT'S THE FIRES! NOW, AGAIN, LARRY SILVERSTEIN (LEASEHOLDER OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER):

http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV

NOW AGAIN, LUIS MENDES(HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION):

http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit2.mp3

NOTE: this is only the MP3 but i did see the actual clip with video saying luis mendes. i would get a screenshot for you, but i can't because it's really weird when i try to screenshot divX videos :/ doesn't work :/
and silver, after THIS CLEAR CUT PROOF that building 7 was taken down with explosives, if you don't believe it yourself, YOU are the one who need to take ur thick-head out of ur ass...
AGAIN, THESE CLIPS ARE FROM THE SAME PBS DOCUMENTARY... THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.

ok...open ur eyes...
1.) how long does it take to prep a building for demo?

2.)does it not take extensive work and drilling to place charges into supports to demo a building?

3.)why would the gov. take building 7, what purpose would it serve?

4.)how many people died in building 7?

5.)why would the gov. demo a building when all they had to do was have the FEMA building inspector slate the building for emergency demolition? it can be done in hours. w/o charges being placed. anf if the building was taken down on purpose they never fwould have used charges because
A.)ruptured mains and gas lines in the area.
B.)radio operations can set off charges in the area.
C.)the implosion of building 7 would make the ground settle where the towers came down, killing survivors and makeing rescue attempts harder.

6.)why take a building down so much later? why not make it fall as the twin towers fell as to not raise concern from nut cases like the forums u belong to.
waiting for a reply....

YOU HEARD LARRY SILVERSTINE SAY PULL IT!! YOU HEARD LUIS MENDES SAY PULL IT, BOTH IN TERMS OF TAKING A BUILDING DOWN!! I AM NOT A NUT CASE FOR SIMPLY TELLING YOU WHAT THE FUCK IS IN A PBS DOCUMENTARY!! SO IM GUESSING YOU'RE SAYING PBS ARE CONSPIRACY NUTS TOO!!??

UGGHH THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT BUILDINGS TAKE WEEKS TO PREP FOR DEMO!!! DUHH!! IT'S CALLED PRIOR FUCKING KNOWLEDGE AND INVOLVEMENT!!

sorry for yelling.

now i believe if you were to do research you'd see that a fortified bunker on the 20-24th floors (i believe) was made fortified a few weeks earlier (what purpose does that serve i have no clue). the CIA and FBI also had offices in building 7 along with other defence agencies(i dont have the exact stuff on the top of my head). now as for ur radio and gas mains, i dont know anything about that. and as for ur rescue thing, probably wouldnt be too much of a problem because dont forget building 7 wasn't very close to the towers... unlike many taller buildings that actually had pieces fall on them but somehow only had minor damage. those buildings werent leased by larry silverstine. ONLY buildings leased by larry silverstein collapsed on 9/11... THAT'S A FACT. IT'S ALSO A FACT THAT LARRY SILVERSTEIN WAS ONLY THE LEASEHOLDER TO BUILDING 7 UNTIL A FEW WEEKS B4 9/11 WHEN HE GOT A 200 MILLION DOLLAR LEASE WITH INSURANCE ON THE WHOLE WTC COMPLEX... IT'S ALSO A FACT THAT HE GOT 3.5 BILLION BACK IN INSURANCE.
you know what they say when it comes to politics... follow the money.
sorry for the caps, but ur thick-headedness pisses me off. you guys wouldn't believe it was an inside job if the president admitted it :/

no matter how you look at it.....building 7 was on fire, evatuated, secured and no operations were happening there, all rescue ops were happening a few hunder feet away. they had no reason to detonate which would draw attention to the fact they wanted to ditch the building. even for money, there would be an investigation into the collapse...now nut case....i have a street level mentality. you dont do dirt and try to let everyone know. no matter how you look at it this would draw attention. If they would have said...we have to tear the building down its too vlose to the scene its imparing the rescue...poof the building would have been torn down and no one would have knowen....it would be common to do that......they (gov) are not that stupid.
i dont have to yell....i can see the truth...you dont see the truth, thats why you are yelling

p.s. nut case

your head must be a foot thick. ALL I NEED IS THE MOTIVE AND THE FUCKING ADMITTANCE. PERIOD. IT WAS ADMITTED FACE IT! THE BUILDING WAS TAKEN DOWN BY CD's THERE IS NO DENYING THAT IT WAS ADMITTED BY LARRY SILVERSTINE! but obviously u think pull it still means that bs u posted a while ago even when it was used AGAIN in terms of taking down building 6... or did u not read that?

nutty write the guy and ask him for your self....<pulling out stamper> L

alright question, what DOES pull it mean if it doesn't mean take the building down? dont forget it was used by silverstine in reference to building 7 collapsing then it was used by the department of construction and design guy in reference to building 6 being demolished... what more could you want? does that not constitute enough? obviously it cant mean pull power or w/e cause there was no power in the building in mid december... dont forget "o they're getting ready to pull building 6" then him talking about how they needed to be careful with building 6 not to damage the slurry wall... then the engineer talking about the excitement of bringing down the last structure in the trade center complex... and you're STILL denying it? damn...

to pull operations away from building 7. they were no longer concerned with building 7 sense it was secured. why have someone watch and try and save the building. and yes there were alot of gov. tenents in that building. but.....still why use all that shit to do something they had the right to do anyways. and you are wrong according to the debris fields from the towers bld. 7 had been in the center of the debris field. fema's study of wtc bld.7 ch.5 has pic's and such of the damage and the huge amounts of smoke and large fires by the main supports at the area that the break in the building when it fell. read it it makes sense.

What really happened on 9/11?

Some Arab scumbags hi-jacked a plane, brutally killed the pilots and some passengers, then flew the planes into the twin towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania killing 3,500+ innocent people.


That's fucking what happened that day.

jesus christ i feel like im talkin to a brick wall. first of all only 2,800-3,000 died... whoever's telling u 3,500+ died is lying. 2nd of all... did the whole building 6 thing blow over your head? the engineer said "they're getting ready to pull BUILDING 6" when the whole segment was talking about demolishing the remaining structure's... then the guy luis mendes starting talking about how they had to bring down building 6 so it wouldn't damage the slurry wall... listen to the clip again:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit2.mp3

then what isn't in that clip is an engineer saying this:
There's a certain excitement in the air about bringing the last structure down at the World Trade Center. then the documentary shows the building [6] being taken down and the engineers cheering.

they're talking about DEMOLISHING the remaining structures on the WTC... specifically building 6 there... DID THAT BLOW OVER YOUR HEAD!? we're not talking about building 7 right now... this is building 6... there are no operations to pull away from building 6!! the only thing they're PULLING is the building itself... so what does it mean there? "they're getting ready to pull building 6" or did that blow over your thick head too?

Only? You're a moron.

alright so that only came out wrong... yes 3000 ppl is a lot... but whoevers telling u 3,500 is wildly inflating it... the highest figure i've ever heard (and this was in the papers shortly after 9/11) was 3,016... but that's not the argument.... someone still has to answer my question about what 'pull it' has to do with building 6...

one was to many. why the hell are you talking about building 6? even if they said we BLEW the building up....they wouldnt be stupid enough to say it on tv....they would be in jail. and we are thick skulled? you want controversy, why not talk about the drug war, racism in american culture, the increase in distance from lower class to middle class then to rich? there is controversy in america just your barking up the wrong tree.....the nut tree.....no one blew up shit, your paranoid. (and this comming from a paranoid person.)

LARRY SILVERSTEIN (in reference to building 7):
"[the firefighters] said the best thing to do would be to pull it, they made that decision to pull then we watched the building collapse"

ENGINEER IN REFERENCE TO DEMOLISHING BUILDING 6:
*PHONE RINGING* "O they're getting ready to pull building 6"

what does pull mean in reference to building 7? what does it mean in reference to building 6? it sure doesn't mean 2 different things.

fire departments
a.) do not handle explosives (it is too dangerous to have explosive or combustible agents on fire trucks. they carry small amounts of gasolive and oils for chainsaws and such.
b.) they (emergency services[fire, police, port authority, and ems] would not let a building fall that less then a football field away. its 300 feet that across the street. not with the kinda rescue they had going on. and have you read fema's take on the structues at the wtc, and the reason 7 fell? did you see the pics of fire and smoke? get a grip kid....this is why kids cannot vote....your poor parents. tell them i feel bad for them.
there is no way, fema frie police and everyone down there blew the building up. after the building fell they used heavy equipment to tear down unstable structures that remained after it fell.

and btw the people to use pull it for the 2nd time were from the Department of Design and Construction... not in any means firefighters.

and this would be the same department that was scrambling to get blueprints and maps of utilities, WTC complex, all WTC buildings, water mains, co op's with FF operations bacause all water mains in area were broken from the collapses, infastructure (streets, power, gas) then communicating with fema and ic cmd. they had time to plant bombs to blow up an abandoned building they were goning to have to tear down anyways...u see how crazy u sound?
it makes no sense....its like the most retarded thing i have ever heard.

ANSWER MY FUCKING QUESTION IF IT'S SO RIDICULOUS! IF PULL IT WAS USED IN ONE INSTANCE WHERE A BUILDING WAS BEING TAKEN DOWN THEN WHY WOULD PULL IT MEAN SOMETHING ELSE IN ANOTHER INSTANCE!?

o btw to whoever posted that PM article... look at the credits of ppl who wrote it... first name is BENJAMIN CHERTOFF... cousin to Secretary of Homeland Defense MICHAEL CHERTOFF.

omfg....spazing out are we? wtf....I-N....T-H-E.....V-I-D-E-O....T-H-E-Y...W-E-R-E.....T-A-L-K-I-N-G....A-B-O-U-T....T-H-E...R-E-S-C-U-E.... you dense quack!

Larry silverstine said "they made that decision to pull then we watched the building collapse."
The engineer for the department of design and construction who was demolishing building 6 said "O they're getting ready to pull building 6"

they were not talking about rescue when they said pull with building 6... and since pull with building 6 clearly means take the building down... then it means the same thing when silverstine said it. simple as that. i think you're the one who's dense.

right b4 that they were watch the whole movie....GDMFP

no, right before that they were talking about the department of design and construction tearing down buildings 4 and 5 by mid-december... NOTHING ABOUT RESCUE!
would u like the transcript again?

Narrator: By Mid-december, the department of design and construction had leveled World Trade Center buildings 4 and 5.
*PHONE RINGING* Engineer: Hello? O they're getting ready to pull building 6

do you see anything about rescuing there? i don't.

i dl the the fucking thing from limewire....i have seen it a few times. im done...you are one dumb mother fucker!
elvis is alive, people are being taken up to UFO's, and area 51 is where the moon landing was done. wtf ever you want to believe...you dont have many marbles left. you belong on a mind altering drug so we dont have to worry abour you flying a plane into the white house. seriously...you need a good reality check. you should have your right to breed taken away so you cannot contaminate the gene pool. god help anyone that has to deal with you.

dumb cause i'm right?? tell me that the narrator was NOT talking about demolishing buildings there... TELL ME. right, you can't because he clearly says the department of design and construction leveled building 4 and 5 of the WTC by mid-december.

now you're just putting words in my mouth. i don't believe in any of it... although i do believe there's life somewhere in the universe other than earth... i don't believe we're frequently visited by UFO's. and u have yet to answer my question.

answer what i have for the last five pages...they are incharge of....building permits and maps and shit.......they dont deal with explosives.......wtf else do i have to say you are wrong......it takes weeks of prep work...druid showed you pictures of what it take to demo a building.....no matter what i say the squirrell will not bring back your brain....there were no explosives planted at any of the wtc buildings. u see i see the the world as round...but im sure some other wacko will tell u its flat. your dumb enough to believe it. i cannot make you see the light you have to be looking for itthey had no time to prep a building, and get it detonated in that amount of time. i know i worked a grain mill implosion in the the town. its really loud not little bangs. really talk to someone else on this your repeating the same shit. " he said pull..." its an edited video....he could have been pulling his cock. they were talking about all the shit going on. the emergency services. they had building inspectors inside the building looking to make sure the structure was sound. it was not. they could have torn the building down in a hour or two without anyone approval, seeing as it would have been deemed a hazard to the rescue attempts. to your football field at high school and tell me if a huge explosion would have not rattled the ground 100 yards away. now stfu look theres elvis or tu pac.... go away ur annoying me

I ALREADY ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. you asked how they could prep it in a few hours... i said they don't, it's called prior knowledge and involvement. THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT! DUH! i know the building couldn't have been prepped on 9/11... that's the whole point... i've said this numerous times throughout the thread... but you're obviously too thickheaded to realise that.


wtf do you mean? you think PBS is gonna edit footage in favor of the conspiracy theorists when their whole documentary supports the government story!?

again too many loose ends....ups guy and fed ex guys is one example of people that would be hounding the spot light to say hey..... they were gonna blow the building...and then they would have had to have fucked up and their insurance company would have found out and they would be bolth in jail. think they wouldnt be looking for shit like that...like you said follow the money...WTF i cannot stop posting in there....
second yeah pbs would they just had a show on about how real ailens are...wtf you believe pbs but not fox news or cnn...

that's how i feel about you my friend =)

explain plz? i dont get the UPS and fed ex thing...

lots of channels have shows about aliens and UFOs... history channel does... but that doesn't mean PBS would edit footage... especially to support the opposite side... that would be like me making up some news article about a guy that saw an airplane hit the pentagon... or an airplane crash in pennsylvania... i wouldn't cause 1. i wouldnt make up stuff 2. i wouldn't support your side unless there was a really critical piece of evidence that would make me reevaluate my position (i have done so on many topics in the past... including supporting kerry during the election... i got some critical pieces of info later on in the election that made me support neither).

people normal every day people go in and out of buildings all the time. UPS and FEDEX etc... show up at places everyday with uselss shit. now if ups guy all of a sudden stops going to a building it makes him wonder why./ i know i do shit like that. now for a few weeks the building is closed he would be on cnn telling th world all about it. cnn dont like bush thats fox news. so cnn would love to dig up shit to make bush look like an asshole. these people would be all over. the hot dog guy, the paper guy the fucking bum at the corner. everyone would notice shit like that....to complicated and involes to much secrets for too many people. thats why its not believable. to many people involved, some one would have really triped up. some one would have seen something or came forward.

that is a good point... but not about cnn. yes cnn, msnbc, world news with peter jennings, dan rather and all them may appear liberal... but they're just as controlled as fox is. if they really hated bush they would've posted the stories about the family members getting phone calls not to go to work in the towers on 9/11, they would've talked about how ppl like sen. willy brown and ashcroft were all banned from flying prior to 9/11. do they? no. the MOST they would do is make him look like an idiot... they would never do anything to incriminate him.
but all said, i still stick by larry silverstine's confession, followed by the confirmation of "pull" by the engineer from the dept. of design and construction.

Wow.... that was a fun read.

I don't really want to start another argument here; just want to point out a couple of facts that screamed out at me during the discussion.

Exclusive mentioned something about discrediting an article because it referred to Aluminum "burning up" at a much lower temperature than it's boiling point (the temperature at which it would convert to gas). As a physics student, his primary concern is the change in the matter's physical state, but I am a chemistry major in college, so I take a slightly different approach. At the temperature mentioned (i believe it was 1000 degrees or something, but it really doesn't matter), a chemical reaction is likely to have taken place. Remember that anything that "burns" really means "reacts with oxygen." That being said, the following reaction would take place:

4Al + 3O2(g) --> 2Al2O3(s) Please forgive the error in subscripting.

Al2O3, aluminum oxide, is a flaky white powder. If it formed, due to the rapid movement of gases at such a high temperature, it would be caught up and carried away in a cloud of dust. Hence, the article was probably just concerned with solid aluminum, and for all intents and purposes you can say it "burned up." Keep in mind that it doesn't mean that it goes away into nothing, but rather that it is converted into a different form than that in question and can be ignored. So don't discredit the article before you consult chemistry in addition to your physics.

Point number two is that air resistance is not really that large a factor, especially considering a fall of about 200-220 meters. Therefore, a difference of around .4 seconds as Exclusive mentioned is not that large a difference when considering the collapse of WTC7. Also, when you consider that in addition to gravity, the lower pressure created by the air rushing out of the building would add to its velocity, meaning that at the very least, an initial velocity should be added to the equation, if not the acceleration constant altered. More specifically, Exclusive used this formula to determine the distance traveled of the top of the building in a given time:

distance = initial position + (initial velocity)(time) + .5(acceleration)(time)^2

He removed the velocity term, assuming no initial downward push was applied prior to free fall.

And, I think, but will admit that I am not 100% certain, that the 32.2 ft/s/s he used as the acceleration actually does refer to an object falling through earth's atmosphere, not in a vacuum, which would throw the entire theory out the window.

Now that my chemistry and physics lesson is over, let's move onto vocabulary. Exclusive assumes that "pull" in the context of WTC7 is the same as in WTC6. That assumtion would only be true if there is already an assumption about demolition work present in WTC7, to which there is no proof. (The argument of advance knowledge is all fine and dandy, but it offers no proof that any such prep work actually occurred). To me, Silver's context makes more sense, that "pull" refers to diverting the rescue effort from the vacant building to the more active site at the other two buildings. It would be analogous to saying "pull it" with regard to the war effort in Iraq, meaning end the effort. Context is the ultimate guide.... If I am putting on a jacket while saying "It's a cool day" would be totally different than if I said the same thing having just won a free vacation ("cool" would mean good, awesome, etc.).

I am saying I agree with Silver from a relatively unbiased perspective, as I did not watch either of those videos, only read the transcripts. To me, there seemed to be no link between the demolition term and the term used by Silverstine unless you have already assumed that demolition was occurring in the building.

My two cents. Like I said, I don't want to start another argument; I just now saw this thread and thought I'd point out a couple things I knew about that probably could have contributed to the discussion while it was developing. If you disagree with me on the vocab thing, that's fine; I can't prove my point past what I have already said.

Um, I think I'l leave now before someone throws a rock at me....