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: 45958
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 # 140.
#1. To: Kamala, ALL (#0)
Here are the statements of firefighters who were there: 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. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski" http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department" http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers" http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Ryan_William.txt "Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan" *********** http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html "A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. 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. But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. 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. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned." 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. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. ****************** http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out? Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in. ************ 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." ************ Furthermore, according to http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm "Daniel Nigro said there were RESCUE OPERATIONS that were ongoing. He also says it was HE and not Silverstein who ordered the firemen out. "I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. - Chief Nigro" *********** So the claim that firefighters weren't in danger if WTC7 collapsed or that they weren't "pulled" out is simply false. Either that or all the above firemen are liars.
Instead of relying on mainstream media and the doubtful testimony of the men who covered up the crime of the century by pulling the building you can go to http://www.WTC7.net and see Tower 7 collapse from 3 different angles. All 3 videos show Tower 7 collapsing in 6.5 seconds. None of the three videos show damage sufficient for a collapse of the steel girders. Soon after 911 a 24 story steel girdered skyscraper in Madrd burned for 36 hours without collapsing.
But not from the South Side where a huge hole in the structure was located. It was obscured by smoke from big fires. The Windsor Tower in Madrid was NOT a 24 story steel skyscraper. The core was reinforced concrete and from the 17th floor on down the frame supporting the floors was primarily reinforced concrete. And all the portions of the tower that did depend solely on a steel frame did in fact collapse. But you will not find the truth if you start your investigation with a foundation of "facts" that aren't facts.
6.5 seconds, with the elevator motor cab starting the collapse. How utterly convenient. BAC, you're returned to your usual slimy bullshit - as though you know anything else. "Get back BeOcho!"
Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala AGAviator posted on 2007-02-11 18:29:20 ET Physics, engineering and aviation [our specialty] aside, I wonder how TheStateInc 9-11 believers account for the mathematical statistical improbability..no, impossibility.. of 3 buildings, on fire, all with different damage profiles, all collapsing STRAIGHT DOWN, when they were designed to withstand such damage, and when none ever have before in history. Talk about winning the Progressive Jackpot. We need to take these believers to Vegas and see if some of that good Mojo rubs off on us! AGAviator: Me too, me too!!! Bozo me!! While you're at it, since these events happened so long ago, let's stop discussing history altogether. It's all irrelevant according to you. You've demonstrated your lack of intellect. And that is as politely as I can state it.
Gravity.
Why would the top 20 or 30 floors fall straight down to begin with? If the building collapsed due to weakened steel, do you seriously think all four corners of the top of the building would have fallen at the same exact time, and at the same rate of collapse, considering there were 80 to 90 stories of undamaged steel and concrete that it had to crash through? If the collapse happened as the official story describes, where the steel was weakened by fire, then the top of the building would have tipped, and would have either come to a rest at an angle, or slid off of the undamaged section of the building. Additionally, even if the floors pancaked as described by the official story, the building would not have collapsed at the same rate as if it were falling through thin air, but would have taken at least 96 seconds to collapse, as per Dr. Judy Wood, a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University. A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory One must also take into consideration that the building turned to dust as it fell, so the available energy to break floors below was diminshed by the pulverization of the concrete and steel. Thus, the floors should not have pancaked, as there was not enough energy left over.
It did. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 It didn't. As the videos prove. Ah, yes ... the dental structure expert: http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/pdfs/Wood1.pdf. Notice the emphasis in her resume on biological materials and STATIC analysis/tests. NOTHING on buildings or fire or steel or concrete or dynamics or impact. Here's a even more complete resume: Judy Wood - http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/Wood.html Check out her research papers. Here's a typical one "Mapping of tooth deformation caused by moisture change using moiré interferometry." , Dental Materials, Volume 19, Issue 3, Page 159. You won't find ANY on structures or buildings or impact problems of the sort that occurred in the WTC towers. But you will find plenty on DENTAL ISSUES. And let's let everyone know Mr. Wood's theory about the collapses ... http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html "Ambrose I. Lane talks with special guest Dr. Judy Wood about her evidence for the use of high-energy weapons in destroying the WTC Towers." Not bombs ... Star Wars. Finally, the problem with Dr Wood's billiard analysis ... *********** http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm Judy Wood is a mechanical engineer. Yes, it's true she specializes in dentistry but that doesn't mean she's wrong about her Billiard Ball from the towers. She produced a graphic showing how long it would take a billiard ball to fall from every ten floors of the towers. She starts from the 110th floor, drops a billiard ball, goes to the 100th floor, drops another billiard ball and so forth on down to the tenth floor. Apparently, her only experience with pool is hitting the cue ball off the table. She forgets a little ditty called "Transfer of Momentum." As Greening points out in his paper, the speed of the collapse increased as the floors above collected the floors below. These are not impacts as you would find on a highway. These impacts are being sped up by gravity. Think of billiard balls in a vertical track. ****************
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".
Q: Even if we take it as a given that the planes impact could cause the towers to fail - WHY did they fall the way they did? That is the whole purpose of this thread - to explain the tilt of the cap of the south tower, the tilt that suddenly stopped and corrected itself so that the tower fell straight down. As soon as the pivot point on the opposite side of the tower was broken, the entire upper portion of the tower was pulled straight down, accelerating at 32 ft./s2. This downward force was much greater than the angular force as evidenced by the very slow speed of the inititial tilt compared to the relatively fast speed of the free-fall. Therefore, while it looked like the tower stopped tilting, it actually continued to rotate very slowly as it fell straight down. The additional rotational movement was obscured by the cloud of smoke. Imagine somebody balancing on a tight-rope, and tipping over to one side before they fall. The free-fall will appear instantaneous compared to the slight wobbling before the fall. I think this may be the same effect that happened with the South Tower." Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
This is pseudo-scientific abble-gabble. Statements such as "The horizontal force and angular momentum was very small in comparison to the gravitational, i.e., vertical force" are essentially meaningless. You are confusing momentum and force---which shows you don't even understand basic physics. Gravitational force should have accelerated rotation of the top of the South Tower consistent with conservation of angular momentum of the top around its center of gravity and linear momentum of its center of gravity away from the vertical axis of the building. The downward force on the building structure would in fact have decreased as the top continued tilting. Instead, we witness a deceleration of rotation as the top collapses straight down. This indicates that the block on which the top was rotating had simply disintegrated, which is precisely what we witness in videos of the event. There is no explanation for this disintegration that can rely on gravitational force alone.
There have to be at least 100,000 PhD physicists in the world. Exactly how many of these real-life *physicists* agree with your version of events, then? LMAO!
How many physicists think gravitational force can destroy conservation of angular momentum? Not one. You should stick to your model airplanes---but next time make sure the area is well ventilated when using the glue.
I notice you've dodged the question and are instead blathering about technical terms which you just finished accusing me of doing. You claim I don't understand physics. So how many physicists agree with your version of events?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 few hours, 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. There's not a responsive word in that "explanation" how or why the building mass on the South Tower on which the top of the tower was rotating disintegrated. That was my question, remember? In fact, there's a lot in your "explanation" that is simply and demonstrably untrue, manifesting that you have no interest in the truth or debating this important issue in good faith. Now what do you think that leaves me to do? That's right: I'm putting you on "ignore." You can continue to be an embarrassment to the people who have hired you to "debate" this issue---you can just do it without wasting my time.
FEMA Performance Study, p.1-10 Table 1-1 Timeline of Major Events The FEMA Performance Study states in Table 1-1 that WTC 2 began collapsing 56 minutes and 10 seconds after impact. Impact was recorded at 9:02:54 in the FEMA Report. 9:02:54 plus 56:10 is 9:59:04, the origin time of the 2.1 magnitude event.
Obviously, any seismic impacts before the buildings actually hit the ground have to be of energy released as they started their collapse. Even if you subscribe to the explosives/thermite theory, there would still be energy released as the building started going down. The question would then become how much of that energy was from the explosives, and how much was from the structures - because "they" didn't set off half a million tons of explosives, did they?
From the NIST: "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." Considering the seismic peak of the South Tower collapse occurred 4.5 seconds after the first indication of collapse,what do you make of this statement by the NIST? Is it accurate?
#142. To: honway (#140)
Now that you mention it, I would expect some seismic activity to register from objects weighing many tons and falling hundreds of feet. However in a conventional collapse, things don't have to weaken and release their energy all at once. However in an explosives-initiated collapse, you'd expect to see some seismic spike from the explosives being set off. So where's the explosives-induced spike at the very beginning of the collapse, if explosives were in fact the cause?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest There is a problem with the above statement, namely there were no firefighters in WTC 7:
#9. To: BeAChooser (#1)
#36. To: Horse, ALL (#9)
Instead of relying on mainstream media and the doubtful testimony of the men who covered up the crime of the century by pulling the building you can go to http://www.WTC7.net and see Tower 7 collapse from 3 different angles.
Soon after 911 a 24 story steel girdered skyscraper in Madrd burned for 36 hours without collapsing.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
#37. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#36)
#40. To: SKYDRIFTER, agaviator, beachooser, christine, all, zipporah, kamala, angle, burkeman1, ferret mike, jethro tull, skydrifter (#37)
(Edited)
Let's stop discussing things that happened over 5 years ago..blah blah
As far as I'm concerned, 911 whodunits are quite a waste of time. The events happened nearly 5 1/2 years ago, you can make a case there are certain elements who welcomed them, and instead of stopping the insanity that has resulted from it, there is this endless speculation bordering on obsession...
#42. To: IndieTX (#40)
(Edited)
Physics, engineering and aviation [our specialty] aside, I wonder how TheStateInc 9-11 believers account for the mathematical statistical improbability..no, impossibility.. of 3 buildings, on fire, all with different damage profiles, all collapsing STRAIGHT DOWN,
When they were designed to withstand such damage, and when none ever have before in history
They were designed to fall sideways? Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#46. To: AGAviator, IndieTX, Kamala (#42)
They were designed to fall sideways?
#64. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator, Kamala, ALL (#46)
If the collapse happened as the official story describes, where the steel was weakened by fire, then the top of the building would have tipped,
and would have either come to a rest at an angle, or slid off of the undamaged section of the building.
Additionally, even if the floors pancaked as described by the official story, the building would not have collapsed at the same rate as if it were falling through thin air, but would have taken at least 96 seconds to collapse, as per Dr. Judy Wood, a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University.
Note: The animated gif does not take gravity into account. The weight of the cue ball does not combine with the weight of the 2 ball in this illustration. This is just to illustrate transfer of momentum in a vertical tube. (I have little doubt some of these dishonest conspiracy sites will take this out of context)
#68. To: BeAChooser (#64)
and would have either come to a rest at an angle, or slid off of the undamaged section of the building.
#76. To: FormerLurker (#68)
(Edited)
A: "I don't believe the tilt suddenly stopped and corrected itself. The horizontal force and angular momentum was very small in comparison to the gravitational, i.e., vertical force.
#78. To: AGAviator (#76)
I don't believe the tilt suddenly stopped and corrected itself. The horizontal force and angular momentum was very small in comparison to the gravitational, i.e., vertical force. blah blah blah
#79. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#78)
You are confusing momentum and force---which shows you don't even understand basic physics.
Bozo List (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#80. To: AGAviator (#79)
Exactly how many of these real-life *physicists* agree with your version of events, then?
#81. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#80)
(Edited)
How many physicists think gravitational force can destroy conservation of angular momentum? Not one
Bozo List (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#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.
#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
#105. To: AGAviator (#100)
but then the part it was rotating against collapsed which caused all sections to start falling straight down.
#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.
#131. To: AGAviator (#125)
So, explain the disintegration. We're all waiting.
#132. To: all (#131)
(Edited)
After a few hours, the structures collapsed.
#138. To: honway (#132)
9:02:54 plus 56:10 is 9:59:04, the origin time of the 2.1 magnitude event.
#140. To: AGAviator (#138)
obviously, any seismic impacts before the buildings actually hit the ground have to be of energy released as they started their collapse.
Replies to Comment # 140. Considering the seismic peak of the South Tower collapse occurred 4.5 seconds after the first indication of collapse,what do you make of this statement by the NIST? Is it accurate?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 140.