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: 37315
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 126.
#2. To: Kamala, ALL (#0)
This is from ImplosionWorld, experts in building demolition: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf "We have never, ever heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway." ************* http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm Implosionworld.com has received numerous inquiries from around the world requesting information and commentary relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, and specifically the felling of the World Trade Center towers. We have been contacted by media outlets, structural engineers, schoolteachers, conspiracy theorists and many others who are searching for answers and some “perspective” regarding these significant events that have evoked deep emotions and undoubtedly changed our world forever. The editors of implosionworld.com have created this page to answer a few of the most frequently asked questions that fall within our area of knowledge and expertise. But first we’d like to be clear in stating that any conversation relating to “implosions” and what causes structures to fail is undertaken with reverence and respect to those who perished as a result of this event. As many of our frequent web visitors are aware, Implosionworld.com’s offices are located close to New York City, and several of our employees were personally touched by this tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the families of those lost and injured, and our intent here is to help foster a constructive base of knowledge and understanding through education, while dispelling false rumors related to the attack. DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”? No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site. WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE? Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level. DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE? To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack. HOW DOES THIS EVENT COMPARE WITH A NORMAL BUILDING IMPLOSION? The only correlation is that in a very broad sense, explosive devices (airplanes loaded with fuel) were used to intentionally bring down buildings. However it can be argued that even this vague similarity relates more to military explosive demolition than to building implosions, which specifically involve the placement of charges at key points within a structure to precipitate the failure of steel or concrete supports within their own footprint. The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a “building implosion.” ***********
Photos of FDNY in Action Before & After WTC Buildings Collapsed
WTC Fire Covering Several Floors, Heating Metal Red-Hot
Ha, ha. That is an image of the south tower right after impact. That isn't the perimeter girders "red hot" its the jet fuel burning. According to NIST/FEMA around 4500 gals were avalable, and in less than 10 minutes all the jet fuel was gone, and also according to NIST, the towers were an oxygen and fuel poor environment. Oh, yeah, by the way, according to your Einstein train of logic from another thread, why are you quesioning or commenting on fire or structual issues? Are you fire or structual engineer or scientist? I won't waste my time with you long. You'll get your so richly deserved beating and I'll move on. Your LIHOP, bungling government theory won't hold up here.
Is that the expertise you consider necessary to make a judgement about the WTC tower collapse? Then why do you ignore the fact that except for one or two examples (and I'd be happy to chat about those), NO structural engineers, demolition experts, experts in steel or fire, or macro-world physicist have signed on to your demolition theory. Why do you think that is, Mark?
If you could read and comprehend it would be nice. He asked me in a prior post if I was a pilot, insinuating that is what I needed to comment on matters surrounding the Pentagon. All one needs is to have reason, deduction and conclusions based on real hard science. Not some computer models that you can tweek the sofware anyway you want to get the desired outcome. Bad data in, bad data out. Ask this question. Whats in it for the whistleblowers to step out and tell the truth? Nothing but hassles, lawsuits and heartaches, job losses. I come from a family of firefighters. In private my relatives know what happened, but in public, they would never make such claims. I did some work in the pyrotechnics industry. I still have a close friend there. We have talked privately and he KNOWS it was a demo job, but he would deny it in public on a bible. I've asked him to come forward, but he has a wife and kids, a long standing job and flat out told me, NO. I've seen some of the computer tech gear used in firework shows. This was back in 2001. He was then talking about radio controlled shows with no wires or anything was very close. He had seen demos of it at testing grounds. This was for firework shows, can you imagine what we have that we don't know? Anything can be done, the tech hard ware he saw was developed elsewhere, more than likely from the military. There are 1 1/2 million engineers in this country. Why do we keep using the same ones? The same ones with ties to govenment funded projects. The same engineers who gave us the OKC report. In any real independent investigation, there would be no ties as to taint any conclusions or research. This wasn't the case in any of 911's investigations. These government experts were involved in the BPAT/FEMA report. The Silverstein/Weidlinger report, and the NIST report. All 3 reports contradict each other. Even though the same engineers worked on them. Very strange "experts".
Ask this question. Whats in it for the whistleblowers to step out and tell the truth? Nothing but hassles, lawsuits and heartaches, job losses. I come from a family of firefighters. In private my relatives know what happened, but in public, they would never make such claims. I did some work in the pyrotechnics industry. I still have a close friend there. We have talked privately and he KNOWS it was a demo job, but he would deny it in public on a bible. I've asked him to come forward, but he has a wife and kids, a long standing job and flat out told me, NO. I've seen some of the computer tech gear used in firework shows. This was back in 2001. He was then talking about radio controlled shows with no wires or anything was very close. He had seen demos of it at testing grounds. This was for firework shows, can you imagine what we have that we don't know? Anything can be done, the tech hard ware he saw was developed elsewhere, more than likely from the military. There are 1 1/2 million engineers in this country. Why do we keep using the same ones? The same ones with ties to govenment funded projects. The same engineers who gave us the OKC report. In any real independent investigation, there would be no ties as to taint any conclusions or research. This wasn't the case in any of 911's investigations. These government experts were involved in the BPAT/FEMA report. The Silverstein/Weidlinger report, and the NIST report. All 3 reports contradict each other. Even though the same engineers worked on them. Very strange "experts". 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. Government is the biggest contractor and employer, both direct and indirect, in the country. For Engineers, and some other types of Professionals, being blackballed by the goobermunt means you get a job driving a cab - if you can get a cabby license. Those with the courage to buck the official fairy tale are few and far between. Look at Dr. (formerly Professor) Stephen Jones. He had tenure so they couldn't really fire him but he was forced to take a golden handshake and leave BYU. However, what I actually started to comment on was this: This is a point I've made before, on LP, that observers and analysts who study what the "Black Budget" people are doing estimate that the "Black Budget" people are, at any given time, working with technology a minimum of twenty years in advance of anything the public is allowed to know. My favorite example is the SR-71 Blackbird - which went operational in 1958. That means that it had been in development, on the drawing board and in prototype, for at least 5 years or more. Think about that. A Mach 3+ aircraft was fully operational in 1958. Chuck Yeager had only broken the Sound Barrier in October of 1947 (14 October to be exact). Yet a mere 11 years later a Mach 3+ aircraft is fully operational - and remained in use up until just a few years ago. The government would not even admit that it existed until 1972. Lord only knows what is operating now (there are hints that there are craft operating at hypersonic speeds, mach 6+, and rumors of partial anti-gravity assists) (there are even rumors of a "Black Budget" Space Program - which would go some distance in explaining why NASA has been kept using antiquated technology - as a cover and diversion). The point being that we do not know what we do not know i.e., we do not know the governments true technologic capabilities because they are buried under layer after layer of secrecy. We do not know whether, and what, some type of technology not in the public domain was used to bring down the Towers. What we do know is that the official fairy tale does not account for all of the available observations and evidence and is therefore not accurate.
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!
There are no replies to Comment # 126. End Trace Mode for Comment # 126.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest "Pull" is a term used in building demolition...
#3. To: BeAChooser, All (#2)
#4. To: All (#3)
#6. To: AGAviator, *9-11* (#4)
#35. To: Kamala, Agaviator, ALL (#6)
To Agaviator - Oh, yeah, by the way, according to your Einstein train of logic from another thread, why are you quesioning or commenting on fire or structual issues? Are you fire or structual engineer or scientist?
#47. To: BeAChooser, *9-11* (#35)
#77. To: Kamala (#47)
All one needs is to have reason, deduction and conclusions based on real hard science. Not some computer models that you can tweek the sofware anyway you want to get the desired outcome. Bad data in, bad data out.
" I've seen some of the computer tech gear used in firework shows. This was back in 2001. He was then talking about radio controlled shows with no wires or anything was very close. He had seen demos of it at testing grounds.
This was for firework shows, can you imagine what we have that we don't know?"
#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.
Replies to Comment # 126.
