See other 9/11 Articles
Title: WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It" Explanation Examined
Source:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein_pullit.html
URL Source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein_pullit.html
Published: Feb 10, 2007
Author: M Rivero
Post Date: 2007-02-10 20:28:49 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 37351
Comments: 467
WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It" Explanation Examined On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue: Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. ... In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building. Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building. [US Department of State] There is a problem with the above statement, namely there were no firefighters in WTC 7: "No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report] "There was no firefighting in WTC 7." [Popular Mechanics] "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons." [New York Times] Let's have a look at Silverstein's full statement: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." WMV video download (490kB) In summary, the fire department commander said the fire could not be contained, Silverstein said "the smartest thing to do is pull it", and the fire department made the decision to pull. "Pull" is a term used in building demolition... "We're getting ready to pull Building 6" ... "We had to be very careful how we demolished Building 6..." WMV video download (564kB) ...but the US Department of State contends that Silverstein's "pull it" statement refers to withdrawing firefighters from WTC 7. If this was the case then firefighters should have received a message which said something like "World Trade 7 is unsafe. Abandon the building and withdraw from the area." Okay, let's have a look at the language used by firefighters withdrawing from the area of WTC 7: "It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..." WMV video download (1 MB) The above indicates the message received by the firefighters was "We are going to demolish 7 World Trade. Clear the area." INDRA SINGH EMT: "...by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down." HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?" SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility..." [Prison Planet] It has also been stated that a 20 second radio countdown preceded the collapse of WTC 7. The statement by Silverstein Properties and the US Department of State also contends there were no deaths in WTC 7 because "pull it" was an evacuation order. This is factually incorrect: Speakers for voice evacuation announcements were located throughout the building and were activated manually at the Fire Control Center (FCC) [WTC 7 Report] It would be impossible to miss an evacuation order. "...I'm on top of building 7 just pulling out rubbish. Pulled out a Port Authority cop at about 11 o'clock in the morning..." WMV video download (597kB) "When 7 World Trade Center came down on Sept. 11, an agent on loan from Washington, special officer Craig Miller, perished..." [PDF download (link expired)] "The Secret Service New York Field Office was located in 7 World Trade Center ... Master Special Officer Craig Miller, died during the rescue efforts." [PDF download] The death of Master Special Officer Craig Miller is another inconsistency in the official explanation of Silverstein's "pull it" comment. Why aren't the numerous inconsistencies questioned by the mainstream media? See also: Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition The 9/11 WTC Collapses: An Audio-Video Analysis What Really Happened Email This Page To A Friend
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-86) not displayed.
.
.
.
#87. To: BeAChooser, *9-11* (#59)
(Edited)
Magnesium was the main fuel source at Madrid. Quit being deceptive. 1400 degrees may have been the physical temps, but the gas temps were over 2000 degrees. The localized steel section that failed had slab concrete floors on top of the steel girders. Concrete isn't like steel, concrete is like a charcoal briquet, it holds and radiates heat. This MAY have contributed to the failure also. Look at the photos of WTC 2 just before the collapse. The fires are just a black, smokey, fuel poor and O2 starved office fire, just as NIST as written. If you compare the photos right after the impact, and then just before it was "poised" to collapse, the photos show the fires dieing out. If the floors were hanging loose, then how do disconnected floors pull? NIST has no scientific proof of sagging floor systems. All live scale floor model experiment preformed by UL for NIST bare this out. Another NIST deception was that in their computer models, NIST used 9 floors for their model, instead of the known 5 floors of damage. Again, doubling and tweeking software to get the pre desired results. Molten liquid aluminum from the skin of an aircraft? This metal shown in photos, glows bright in the daylight. Aluminum is silvery in a liquid nature. There is no scientific proof of this phenomenon. When these claims can be reproduced in scientifically controlled experiment, get back to me. If there were no fires on the western side to heat all the structural steel of the WTC 2, how did it symmetrically collapse. In your ccp post, there is alot of "maybe" and "probably" and could of. "My claims" are not mine, they are FEMA/NIST. NIST has no scientific proof of gas temps of 1800 or higher for anytime. NIST got gas temps by increasing the known jet fuel load, then over ventilating the fire. Totally unscientific and based on nothing. FEMA/NIST had engineers from Berkley look at the steel from the impact zones. The steel saved was marked from its construction and was known to be from the location of the impacts. The steel was deemed to have preformed great, and the impacts did very little to the towers. Skilling, the main designer/architect said the towers could withstand the impact of an airliner and the resulting fire. The engineers/designers/architects planned for the fuel dump and the fires that would follow. DeMartini said he truely believed that the towers could take multiple airliner impacts. MIT engineers hired by FEMA/NIST concluded the airliners energy was expeneded upon impact. Just as the towers were designed. There was no energy left to "dislodge" or scrap clean all the fireproofing on 5 floors. You need to READ more, not just ccp stuff you find. Right in and included in the NIST primary appendix is a research white paper signed by Skilling, the main designer/architect, in 1964, PLANNING FOR HIGH SPEED IMPACTS OF 600 MPH by airliners, this was in conjuction with the Port Authority. The airliners size were comparable in size, weight and length. The 707 was a faster jet. All the skeptics like to quote Leslie Robertson. HE has been caught lying and has lots of ties to government funded projects. Why don't ever mentioned that the fireproofing was upgraded in the mid 90's to 2.2 inches and a much more robust type was used. This is stated in the NIST report. NIST claim ALL the fireproofing was scraped off, yet they tested the steel from the fire zones, they had the serial construction numbers of the girders and such, and only found temps of 480 degrees. NIST can't have it both ways, either there was still plenty of fireproofing left in the impact zones, or all of it was "blown" off. The real NIST tests bare out that the steel only reached around 480. By the time the fires had move out of an area, which NIST concludes it had 20 mins of office fuel, it moved on. It took about a hour for the fire to work its way around WTC 1. By that time, the north face was cool, and employees were standing in and around the impact zones. How does cool structural steel fail? NIST has diagrams showing what it believes how the temps rose and fell. There is no proof of these temps. Its all speculation. I use their models to show how preposterous their claims are. All I'm doing is pointing out all the deceptive, misleading conclusions in the reports. These are not my claims, but the actual reports and designers involved.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
How do you get all your information, and how do you find the time to get it all?
So far, BAC is obviously hiding from me. That's unusual for even his magnitude of cowardice. BUT, not particularly surprising. "Get Back, BeOcho; go home." I think he wants his gal Goldi to feel sorry for him & invite him back (BAC?)
Mostly from old NewsMax articles from what I saw on LP.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
The aluminum alloy used in aircraft skin doesn't melt in the fashion of a beer can. It usually turns into a flaking powder. If there are solid and predominantly aluminum pieces, those can be melted, but that's not much material on an aircraft.
BAC is supposed to be the new site kook for people to beat on. Buckeroo pissed off Christine and Ponchy was too nasty. BAC is an obsessed nut that is sober most of the time (I think). And he's just enough of a sociopath that he doesn't catch on to what people think of him and his ideas. Hence, he won't run off like a normal person would.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
AND ..... For all the distracting information, one has to wonder what caused the simultaneous collapse of 47 steel columns, resulting in the free-fall of BOTH towers; add WTC-7. All that supposed temperature, without the aluminum siding warping, in concert. Damn, BAC, you're as full of shit, as ever! {Goldi still loves you; I know it.}
You claim I don't understand physics. So how many physicists agree with your version of events? Au contraire. Your silly "appeal to authority"---challenging me to find a "physicist" that "agrees" with a "version of events"--is the attempt at diversion. Your claim that angular momentum in the fall of the top of the South Tower was somehow not conserved because "the gravitational vertical force was much stronger than the horizontal force," is arrant, unscientific nonsense. That's not a "version of events"---it's a concoction that is knowingly false and contrary to physics. Forget about the physicist---find readers of the thread an explanation consistent with physics for the sudden and complete disintegration of the base upon which the top of the South Tower was rotating, within a couple of seconds after it begins to rotate. "Gravitational force" cannot explain that disintegration---otherwise, every high-rise would be in danger of collapse every day.
BAC is almost a source of entertainment. At least we get the disinformationist viewpoint. In that fashion, BAC did a really good job of constructively editing my 9-11 Web site. There's supposed to be another 9-11 book coming out, relying in part on my observations. I won't know for certain, until it hits the store shelves, however. I do owe BAC, in that respect. Otherwise, he's so much brown and smelly slime.
Let's not forget this part: Published on Tuesday, February 4, 2003 by the Prince George's Journal (Maryland) Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United by Margie Burns George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family. ...its bids for contracts are noncompetitive - and also did security work for the Los Alamos laboratory before 1998. Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. But the White House has not publicly disclosed Bush connections in any of its responses to 9/11, nor has it mentioned that another Bush-linked business had done security work for the facilities attacked.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Could be a set up. I remember a poster at FR named "Kevin Curry" who did an opus thread pretending to criticize Bush in February 2004, "The Paradox of Unified Control," or some pompous title like that. It was "ban bait," and of course he was banned. He was then welcomed as a hero at LP as "kcurry". Soon after that, however, he began to be "buds" with BAC, and published the most vicious, vitriolic attacks on anyone criticizing Bush's Iraq War, calling them "blood dancers" and the like. He suddenly disappeared around Christmas 2004. I later saw him ID'd on another site as a DEA agent. I bet there're lots of posters like him, disrupting threads and being paid tax dollars for doing it.
Sudden Building Collapse Syndrome (SBCS) is not well understood. Perhaps that is why the 9/11 Commission Report made no mention of the sudden collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 late in the day on September 11, 2001. The 9/11 Commission Report didn’t include any information about the President’s brother, Marvin Bush either. Marvin Bush was a principal owner of the security firm, Securecom, aka Statesec, the company that held the contract to provide security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport on Sept 11th, 2001. But with the new popularity of online video the public is beginning to discover video tape evidence showing that the collapse of Building 7 occurs at free fall speed identical to what happens in a controlled demolition. In a controlled demolition explosive charges are used to liquify weight bearing joints causing the walls to collapse directly into a building’s footprint with no resistance at free fall speed. Which may explain why traditional media outlets have never allowed the public to see video clips of Building 7 as it collapsed. No airplane hit building 7 yet it collapses at free fall speed as did the twin towers earlier that same day. But the work required to wire a 47 story building for a controlled demolition would have had to begin some time before Sept 11, 2001 and that points to Marvin Bush’s security company. Was Marvin Bush sleeping on the job or very much awake? Or did Building 7 commit suicide in an act of solidarity with the other two buildings?
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
9/11 Memorial Service
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
In other words, there are no physicists who agree with your version of events so now you are once more trying to obfuscate your claim that you know more about physics than all the physicists in the world. Your blathering about angular momentum is simply more obfuscation. You people claim there was a conspiracy because the buildings allegedly fell straight down. I then show a photo depicting one starting to fall sideways. You ask how that could happen. I then post an explanation saying that it started falling sideways, but then the part it was rotating against collapsed which caused all sections to start falling straight down. And once all sections started falling, they fell much faster than any section that was previously rotating. Plain and simple English beyond your comprehension - as is physics. You then start some diversion about "conservation of angular momentum" and claiming I don't know physics. I ask you how many physicists will back you up. Your response is so say I'm "appealing to authority." Well, who's more of an *authority* on physics? You or people who are physicists in the real world? Finally, I posted a picture of one building starting to fall sideways. Since you allege that controlled demolition conspiracies make buildings fall straight down, what is making that building fall start to fall sideways? And, if you're foolish enough to say a controlled demolition, not only are you contradicting yourself, but you're also not explaining why "they" wouldn't want the building to continue falling sideways so as to maximize the death and destruction.
what's with the smiles on the faces of ma and pa there?
Gee 911 Mysteries fully explains this, explicitly and implicitly. I suggest those wishing for substantiation to watch it. Link provided on Reply # 63.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Mission Accomplished, darlin'.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
"Tightly interwoven system of steel plates and girders"?? What the hell does that mean? That the Twin Towers were the functional equivalent of a mass of solid steel? That's just purple prose bullshit, and contrary to what we know about the construction of the Towers. the relevant question is how fast a shock wave can travel through solid steel. The relevant question is whether the Towers were designed to absorb the impact of an airliner such as did hit them on 9/11 and stay standing. They were, and they did. The answer, for all intents and purposes, is instantaneously... "For all intents and purposes"? More bullshit. The energy of a shock wave dissipates relatively quickly with distance and it does not propagate "instantaneously." Even if it did, the relevant question once again would be whether the structure was designed to withstand the disturbance. It was. It did. After just a couple of posts, it's obvious to me and to everyone that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Whoever's paying you to post here is not getting their money's worth. Hand the computer back to Mom, and go sign up for some extension courses in physics.
So we agree: It is this fact---the disintegration of the fulcrum---that explains the failure of the Tower top to conserve angular momentum and continue---indeed accelerate---rotation, not "gravitational force." So, explain the disintegration. We're all waiting.
They weren't getting their money's worth at the last targeted op, either. He was canned from the disinfo gig at the LF site a little over a year ago. He threatened with ominous predictions of those that would come after him (bigger, better and more powerful) and then disappeared as AGAviator from the LF fourm. His associates remain.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Junior's now a made member of the Family...
The indications I got were that the steel beam links to the central core were not totally severed, as the 'cap' began to tilt. Thus, when the base abruptly collapsed out from under the 'cap,' there was enough tension to pull the cap with it. That tension was enough to keep the cap from falling over.
Well, he was then. I wonder if his rejection of the Iraq Study Group report made him unmade.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
I think this proves you wrong. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 Actually, very little steel debris was ejected out and away from the tower. Most of what is seen is the aluminum siding. And why would one expect that not to be ejected outward during the collapse. Remember, the building was 95 percent air. As it collapsed that air had to go somewhere. And it took along a few things with it. http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html Why is it that the folks pushing the bombs in the towers theory can't seem to make up their mind whether the steel in the structure collapsed into the footprint or outside the footprint? Not true. In fact, in the time it took the tower to collapse, debris falling through air could have traveled two to three times as far. Isn't it odd how with so many phenomena that the bombs in tower crowd say is obvious proof of a deliberate demolition, so few structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists have come forward to support them. In fact, one could count the number of named individuals on one hand (actually, a couple fingers), yet there are tens of thousands of such experts around the world. And even that tiny amount of conspiracy theory *support* can be explained away when one understands that all the individuals in question were shown by the conspiracists who *interviewed* them were hand picked images. And the individual did not look at any other material before reaching his conclusion. Nor was he told the full story behind what he was shown. And, based on certain quotes by those persons, it would appear they also had a certain pre-existing bias against the US. Not to mention the individuals in question aren't even talking to the conspiracy community any more. It's almost like they are embarrassed. And how does one arrive at this conclusion? By waving hands? By ignoring the many large and small structural analysis models that have been performed? Again, if it's as obvious as all that, why aren't ANY of the tens of thousands of structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists around the world quoted saying that? Are they all incompetent, Mark? Do you think they are all part of this great conspiracy? Even the ones in France?
Just a show to distract the masses. BushBackerSaudiCheneyInc are trillions to the good. Ain't like junior's really the main man now, is it?
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Not true. Multiple firefighters noted this large hole and expressed concern that WTC 7 was going to collapse. There is photographic evidence of a large hole. See http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm Here is what Steve Spak is quoted saying in the above link: "Hours before the collapse of 7 WTC, Fire Chiefs at the scene advised all units to stay away from 7 WTC because of the collapse dangers. They had no water to fight the blaze and the building was damaged from the collapse of the North Tower. You can see a big hole on the lower floors in this photo." Here are some more accounts that show what you claim isn't true. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt "They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone." http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html "So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. ... snip ... Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. "
The 9/11 Commission did say the towers collapsed in 10 seconds ... but they got a lot of things wrong. NIST did not say the towers collapsed in 9 to 11 seconds. What they said is this: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." And neither does seismographic evidence suggest a collapse of 9 to 11 seconds. As the above source notes: "The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers." And here are videos that you can time yourself to determine the collapse time was more like 15 seconds. In this one, http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444&q=9%2F11+eyewitness the collapse occurs at around 6:40. Here's a source that shows frames at half-second intervals from a real-time CNN broadcast feed aired during the attack (http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/tower1_dust_cloud_afterglow.mpg). According to http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html "the CNN video suggests that it takes about ten seconds for the bottom of the mushrooming dust cloud to reach the ground, and another seven or so for the top to reach the ground. The following composite timeline combines timing estimates of collapse events from the CNN video and the PAL seismic record. It assumes rubble hitting the ground caused the large ground movement, and thus that the crumbling of the tower prior to that caused only minor ground movement. Given that, the times from these pieces of evidence match up remarkably well.
From http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html "And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped." http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html "WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02] Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02] Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11."
Here's a good rebuttal video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934 "Screw 9/11 Mysteries - Clunkity Clunk Edition This is a counter-video to the first edition of "9/11 Mysteries". Using their own video and words, "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" aims to point out ... all » not only the bad science used in the film, but also the several accounts of lying, quote mining, tricky editing and strawman arguments."
No, Dr Greening also provides an alternate source for the other components in thermite. For example, he points out that sulfer was present in large quantities in building materials. Furthermore, in his paper ( http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf) he shows that there are other explanations than thermite (or thermate) for the heat needed to explain the heat and the molten materials observed at the WTC site. Sorry, but you are misrepresenting Greening's work if you are trying to suggest to readers that he wasn't trying to dispute the thermite theory. He was. And unlike *EX-professor* Jones (a sub atomic particle physicist), Dr Greening actually does have a PHD in CHEMISTRY. He also observed that *EX-professor* Jones' test "lacks most of the key conditions that were present in the WTC impact zones on 9-11, namely prolonged fires ignited by aviation fuel, sustained by burning plastics, paper, furniture, etc, that directly heated water, aluminum and rusted steel in the presence of crushed concrete and gypsum. I challenge Prof. Jones to repeat his tests under these conditions and publish the results." And as far as I know, *EX-professor* Jones has done neither.
So you claim now that the air in the building was the prime agent in the sidewards expulsion of heavy metal building materials in the collapse of the Towers? Back up your assertion with proof. Photos of the collapse show 30 foot steel sections blown as much as 70 meters to the side. The aluminum cladding was also not weightless, but weighed many tons. You've made the claim that compressed air was sufficient to blow these heavy metal pieces over half a football field clear of the collapse, and now you're going to have to show that the collapse generated energy sufficient to allow the air in each floor space to compress and blow out that steel and aluminum to such a lateral distance. Your "breezy" ipse dixit that the air in the building "took along a few things with it" doesn't begin to prove your claim. Quantify it, or link to someone who has.
Slurpy, You're all so stuck in arguing that it's not a dog; it's an animal. You never learn.
And you think Conservation of Momentum doesn't apply to vertical structures made of beams, trusses, steel and concrete? ROTFLOL!
By all means, supply us with the name of ONE expert (you know ... someone with a degree in structural engineering, demolition or macro-world physics) who agrees with you. Afterall, you are claiming this is obvious. So surely you can come up with the name of some expert (your own but one with a relevant degree) who supports what you are claiming to be the "physics" of the situation. No? ROTFLOL!
Better tell that to FormerLurker and Dr Wood. ROTFLOL! The interior columns weren't the only members bearing the weight of the building.
Again, you better tell FormerLurker and his Dr Wood. ROTFLOL!
Screw 9/11 mysteries (a good rebuttal video) available on Google here
Of course he was "disputing" the thermite hypothesis if he was trying to provide alternatives. My point was that he failed to falsify the hypothesis he was disputing---he never claimed to have done that. And unlike *EX- professor* Jones (a sub atomic particle physicist), Dr Greening actually does have a PHD in CHEMISTRY. He also observed that *EX-professor* Jones' test "lacks most of the key conditions that were present in the WTC impact zones on 9-11, namely prolonged fires ignited by aviation fuel, sustained by burning plastics, paper, furniture, etc, that directly heated water, aluminum and rusted steel in the presence of crushed concrete and gypsum. I challenge Prof. Jones to repeat his tests under these conditions and publish the results." And as far as I know, *EX-professor* Jones has done neither. This is simply irrelevant. Jones was pressured to take early retirement from BYU because of his questioning of the 9/11 official story, but that does not delegitimize his credentials. The fact that he has a PhD in physics instead of chemistry does not mean that he has no expertise in chemistry in general or thermite reactions in particular, as you would know if you had any inkling what you were talking about. Finally, Greening's challenge (and I notice you don't provide a link to it) to Jones to exactly replicate the conditions in the Towers on 9/11 is nonsense and he knows it: according to the terms of Greening's hypothesis, Jones should have been able to replicate Greening's hypothesized "violent thermite reactions" using molten aluminum pouring onto crushed gypsum, concrete and rusty steel. He couldn't: For example, F. Greening has suggested that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could melt, and that this aluminum might fall on "rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions." [Greening, 2006] So a few students and I did straightforward experiments by melting aluminum and dropping molten aluminum on pre-heated rusted steel surfaces. There were in fact no "violent thermite" reactions seen. We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact with the rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 oC per minute (measured with an infrared probe) until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron oxide must have been minimal and did not compete with radiative and conductive cooling, thus NOT supporting predictions made by Greening. There was no observable damage or even warping of the steel. (See photograph below.) Nor were violent reactions observed when we dropped molten aluminum onto crushed gypsum and concrete (wet or dry) and rusty steel. [Jones, 2006; available at http://www.scholarsfor9 11truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc ] These experiments lend no support whatever to the notion [see Greening, 2006] that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the cores of the buildings, even if those columns were rusty and somehow subjected to direct contact with liquid aluminum. F. Greening’s latest hypothesis (another try) is this: oxygen tanks from planes somehow survived the plane crashes and the fireballs, yet leaked about an hour later to release the oxygen in the tanks. This relatively small amount of oxygen was somehow enough, he suggests, to burn office materials such as to melt the structural steel in the building, to produce the large metal flow seen at yellow-hot temperature, flowing from WTC2. [Greening, 2006] Note that the latest proposed explanation provides no mechanism for feeding fuel (office materials) into the oxygen stream, i.e., this is not like an oxy-acetylene torch. Moreover, even if the tanks survived the plane crashes, to melt steel would require steel (not air) temperatures of over 2,700 degrees F – while the steel structure is wicking the heat away from the heat source. Greening needs to consider heat transport in the steel as well as the probability that oxygen tanks in the planes could survive the destructive crashes of the planes. Finally, no plane hit WTC 7, so this latest hypothesis fails from the outset in this case. But we do consider alternative hypotheses such as these. Finally, the data from the solidified slag are not consistent with molten structural steel since it contains almost no chromium, yet shows significant fluorine and elemental sulfur, and high concentrations of nickel and zinc. The laws of physics were not somehow suspended during the supposed "unprecedented attack" of 9/11.
So go cite some real physicists who back you up. And nut bag Prof. Stephen Jones doesn't count. They put him out to pasture - he couldn't even convince his *peers.* I'm patient, so I'll wait till this evening for you to come up with some credible sources. Something tells me you're going to need that time... You're not important enough for anyone to pay money to post to. My replies take a couple minutes, tops. Then I go back to the real world, where I make about 3 times what you'll ever earn. Poor BeAChooser is actually trying to reason with you and cite factual information. I know better. I've been pretty harsh on the lad on LPee because he supports the Iraq war. Now you've *almost* got me feeling sympathy for him. ROTFLOL! Large airplanes flew into towers almost fully loaded with fuel at unprecedented speeds. The crash and the resulting fires seriously weakened the structures. After a relatively short time period, the structures collapsed. Part of the flaming debris generated during their collapse caused fires and substantial damage to a 3rd structure. After a fire was allowed to burn out of control in that 3rd structure, it too collapsed. Now explain to me why you believe the world's engineers and physicists when they say a structure will not fail, but then when it does fail you do not believe their explanations of why it actually did fail. If they are lying for their paychecks after the event, why wouldn't they lie before it when they said it was fail-safe. PS: "Pull" my finger!
Why doesn't that fear factor apply in any other conspiracy? Take the Ron Brown case, for instance. Multiple experts from around the country in forensic pathology came forward publically to suggest that Ron Brown had a bullet hole in his head. And they did this despite threats by the government concerning their jobs and even jail. What makes structural engineers, demolition experts, experts in steel, fire and impact, experts in seismology and experts in macro-world physics so different from forensic pathologists? ALL those who came forward in the Ron Brown case worked directly for the government ... in fact, for an administration that was very hostile to them and had demonstrated in the past a willingness to hurt its opponents. Yet ALL of the experts with direct knowledge of the case did come forward. Why is the WTC and Pentagon case different? In fact, in this case, a great many experts have come forward in support of the government scenario who do not depend on the government for their livelihood. Some even work for other countries. Many, who have said nothing, even work for countries that are quite hostile to the US and Bush administration. Can you explain that, Original_Intent? By the way, I'm flattered that you'd join FD4UM just because I did. ROTFLOL!
Let's take a look at the first collapse(thanks to BootHill for the graphic) (start) is first visual indication of collapse, (end) is the end of the collapse. NOTES: 1. The unannotated original of the above chart is available from LCSN labs . Boot Hill posted on 2006-02-27 18:18:20 ET (1 image) Reply
Comments (128 - 467) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#88. To: BeAChooser (#1)
(Edited)
#89. To: Kamala, Christine, Aristeides, Honway, Robin, Diana, All (#85)
#90. To: Diana (#88)
How do you get all your information
#91. To: Kamala, Christine, Aristeides, Honway, Robin, Diana, All (#87)
Molten liquid aluminum from the skin of an aircraft? This metal shown in photos, glows bright in the daylight. Aluminum is silvery in a liquid nature. There is no scientific proof of this phenomenon. When these claims can be reproduced in scientifically controlled experiment, get back to me.
#92. To: SKYDRIFTER (#89)
#93. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Brian S, Aristeides, Honway, Robin, Diana, All (#59)
#94. To: AGAviator (#81)
I notice you've dodged the question and are instead blathering about technical terms which you just finished accusing me of doing.
#95. To: Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Aristeides, Honway, Robin, Diana, All (#92)
#96. To: SKYDRIFTER (#95)
#97. To: SKYDRIFTER (#89)
I think he wants his gal Goldi to feel sorry for him & invite him back (BAC?)
#98. To: All (#96)
http://www.betterbadnews.dreamhosters.com/2006/04/
#99. To: All (#98)
#100. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, Yertle the Turtle, Destro (#94)
Your silly "appeal to authority"---challenging me to find a "physicist" that "agrees" with a "version of events"--is the attempt at diversion.
Your claim that angular momentum in the fall of the top of the South Tower was somehow not conserved
Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#101. To: angle (#99)
(Edited)
#102. To: AGAviator (#100)
a controlled demolition, not only are you contradicting yourself, but you're also not explaining why "they" wouldn't want the building to continue falling sideways so as to maximize the death and destruction.
#103. To: christine (#101)
what's with the smiles on the faces of ma and pa there?
#104. To: AGAviator (#83)
Since the WTC was constructed as a tightly interwoven system of steel plates and girders,
#105. To: AGAviator (#100)
but then the part it was rotating against collapsed which caused all sections to start falling straight down.
#106. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#104)
Whoever's paying you to post here is not getting their money's worth.
#107. To: christine (#101)
what's with the smiles on the faces of ma and pa there?
“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"
#108. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#105)
#109. To: Eoghan (#107)
Junior's now a made member of the Family...
#110. To: Kamala, ALL (#48)
So lets take WTC 1. We are supposed to believe that 14 floors crushed the entire tower? If you look at the videos, as the building explodes, there is nothing above it but concrete dust.
The debris is being ejected out and away from the tower. The steel and dust is outside the tower itself. What is crushing the tower? Air?
The real kicker is, as the debris is falling, the tower explosions/collapse almost keep pace with debris falling through the air.
Now, I don't subscribe to the 9 sec collapse trap. It took both towers around 15 seconds total. That still is WAY too fast for a "progressive gravity collapse".
#111. To: aristeides (#109)
his rejection of the Iraq Study Group report made him unmade
#112. To: Kamala, ALL (#49)
There is only one account of a giant scoop hole in the face of the south WTC 7.
#113. To: FormerLurker, Kamala, ALL (#50)
The 9 to 11 second figures are what NIST and the 9/11 Commission stated, and correspond to the seismographal evidence,
10:28:23 North Tower starts to crumble
10:28:31 Rubble starts to hit the ground (start of big signal)
10:28:36 The heaviest rubble hits the ground (peak of big signal)
10:28:39 Most heavy rubble has reached the ground (end of big signal)"
#114. To: angle, ALL (#53)
I saw a hole, I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down though.
There was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any creaking or any indication that it was going to come down.
#115. To: angle, ALL (#63)
9/11 Mysteries (Full Length, High Quality) 1 Hour 30 minutes 41 seconds
#116. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#66)
Greening's hypothesis did not purport to disprove the possibility of cutter charges using thermite reactions---it merely proposed an alternative explanation relying on aluminium supplied by the crashing planes!
See Dr. Steven Jones' paper here.
#117. To: BeAChooser (#110)
Actually, very little steel debris was ejected out and away from the tower. Most of what is seen is the aluminum siding. And why would one expect that not to be ejected outward during the collapse. Remember, the building was 95 percent air. As it collapsed that air had to go somewhere. And it took along a few things with it.
#118. To: BeAChooser (#115)
#119. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#67)
Apparently, you don't take into account a floor of the WTC is not a pool ball sitting on a pool table, but a solid structure held up by beams, trusses, and connected to a steel core and outer shell.
#120. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#68)
and would have either come to a rest at an angle, or slid off of the undamaged section of the building.
"It didn't. As the videos prove."
Of course it DIDN'T, but it SHOULD have if it had been a collapse caused by the mechanism described by your "experts".
#121. To: RickyJ, Formerlurker, ALL (#70)
Yes gravity would indeed be a factor here but the billiard ball example is not a good one at all.
the 47 massive steel columns that were bearing the weight of the building
#122. To: tom007, Formerlurker, ALL (#73)
The billard analogy is not applicable.
#123. To: christine, angle, ALL (#74)
911 Mysteries available on Google here
#124. To: BeAChooser (#116)
Sorry, but you are misrepresenting Greening's work if you are trying to suggest to readers that he wasn't trying to dispute the thermite theory. He was.
#125. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#105)
(Edited)
After just a couple of posts, it's obvious to me and to everyone that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Whoever's paying you to post here is not getting their money's worth.
So, explain the disintegration. We're all waiting.
#126. To: Original_Intent, ALL (#77)
All good points - and particularly the "fear factor" which does much to explain why people with credentials, whose income depends upon those credentials, will not come forward - they are AFRAID.
#127. To: BeAChooser, *9-11* (#113)
According to http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html
"the CNN video suggests that it takes about ten seconds for the bottom of the mushrooming dust cloud to reach the ground, and another seven or so for the top to reach the ground. The following composite timeline combines timing estimates of collapse events from the CNN video and the PAL seismic record. It assumes rubble hitting the ground caused the large ground movement, and thus that the crumbling of the tower prior to that caused only minor ground movement. Given that, the times from these pieces of evidence match up remarkably well.
10:28:23 North Tower starts to crumble
10:28:31 Rubble starts to hit the ground (start of big signal)
10:28:36 The heaviest rubble hits the ground (peak of big signal)
10:28:39 Most heavy rubble has reached the ground (end of big signal)" 
2. The red-lined annotations in the above chart are based on the following five data points supplied by the LCSN seismic labs
a. The time of initial seismic rupture at the WTC tower was 9:59:04 EST.
b. The duration of the seismic signal of the collapse was 10 sec.
c. The distance from the WTC towers to the LCSN seismometer in Palisades, NY ("PAL") is 34km .
d. The velocity of the seismic waves transiting that distance was 2km per second.
e. The origin time on the zero axis of of the LCSN chart is 9:59:07 EST.
.
.
.