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: 45649
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 # 167.
#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.
Flames are now red instead of orange? On the highest level of the fire, the picture is clearly showing a dull red glow, which is not of any jet fuel, which would be orange flames. Something in the interior is being heated red-hot from the flames. Posting a photo is "commenting on fire or structural issues?" It would have to come from somebody with enough brains to know what color flames are, and the difference between posting a photo and a comment. That rules you out.
Sorry, there are no photos of "glowing red" structural steel. There may be "something" burning, but it isn't steel. Again, the "something" whatever that is burning, is burning around 1100-1200 degrees gas temps. This would line up perfectly with the steel temps of 480-600. According to NIST, the jet fuel was burned off in minutes and the WTC office floors were fuel poor and the fuel in a given area would burn up in around 20 minutes. The west side of WTC 2 never even had any fire or heat at all. The south tower fires were basically out in around 40 minutes. Much too short to heat any steel to any degree. NIST/FEMA engineers looked at and tested the steel from the impact/fire zones and it survived the impacts and preformed great, just as the main designers and architects said it would. The towers not only were designed for an airliner impact, but multiple impacts, at any speed and the fuel dumped involved. NIST did fire temp tests on the steel from the impact area and found physical temps of 480- 600. For structural steel to "glow red", you are talking temps of physical steel reaching 1700 and higher and then staying at those temps. Like at the Madrid fire. NIST again states that fuel was gone in minutes and it was a office fuel poor fire. The photo is taken right after impact and the fuel dump involved. There is no way steel reached that temp that fast. It takes time. Its impossible, plus there is no scientific evidence of this. NIST doesn't claim this. If you have some inside knowledge of the temps, that NIST doesn't, I think you should notify them with this breaking news!! Your photo is your comment. Its misleading and deceptive. I would like to see another photo of the same shot taken 25 minutes later. You know why that photo isn't shown? Because it would show that the fire and flames were out and gone. Like I said, deceptive and misleading. Boy, when things don't go your way, the accusations, name calling and such comes out right away. I won't waste much time on you, so don't get your panties in a bunch.
I'm curious, Mark. What created such high temperatures in the Windsor (Madrid) tower? There was no jet fuel ... no fuel of any kind. It was an ordinary office building. Yet temperatures of over 1400 F were MEASURED. Can you explain that for us? In your *expert* opinion must every side of the tower have been engulfed in fire to initiate a collapse? Many other experts with degrees and experience in structural engineering, fire and steel don't seem to agree that's required. In fact, I haven't seen a single name of someone with credentials in those areas that says what you apparently believe is a requirement for collapse. Why is that? Again, no recognized, named experts in structural engineering, fire or steel seem to agree with you. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps it's that just because conspiracy websites claim something is true, doesn't make it so? Here, listen to what a real expert says ... New York Times, December 3, 2003 " ... snip ... S. Shyam Sunder, who is leading the investigation for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Commerce Department, said, "We are seeing evidence of floors appearing to be sagging — or that had been damaged — prior to collapse." Still, Dr. Sunder said, "The relative role of the floors and the columns still remain to be determined in the collapse." According to an alternative theory of the collapse, the planes that smashed into the towers damaged the towers' vertical structural columns so severely that the buildings were virtually certain to fall. In that view, none of the buildings' many structural novelties — the towers were daring engineering innovations in their day — would have played a significant role in the collapses. Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory. In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below. Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said. "That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully." ... snip ... The studies of the floor trusses and the design of the towers are just two elements of the investigation, which is carrying out computer calculations of the collapses, rebuilding pieces of the towers in order to test them in real fires, and piecing together a highly detailed chronology of the response to the attack. In one set of laboratory tests concerning the floor trusses, researchers used earthquake simulators to violently shake assemblages much like the ceilings in the twin towers. The shaking was meant to simulate the impact of the aircraft. The findings, said Richard Gann, a senior research scientist at the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, showed that many of the fire-protecting ceiling tiles near the impact probably crumbled, exposing the undersides of the trusses directly to the fires." Here are pictures of the south tower in the minutes before the collapse. I sure see fire. And notice the sagging floors well before the collapse occurred. Did bombs cause those sagging floors? Hydrocode calculations show this is the corner where remnants of the plane ended up and this was the fire it was experiencing just minutes before the collapse. And note that NIST fire code calculations show that the temperature in that corner of the tower at that time would likely have been over 1000 C before the collapse (see http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05161.pdf figures 6-33, 6-34 and 6-46). Do you have any experts in structures or fires who say those calculations are wrong? And what about the North Tower. This image shows fires visible on several floors of the North Tower more than an hour after the jetliner impact (and long after the jet fuel was gone). They do not appear to be "oxygen-depleted. Also, I take it that you don't believe what the state of the art fire codes are telling experts in fire. They indicate that the fires in the towers reached upwards of 2000 F for periods that would be enough to severally weaken any steel that had lost its fire protection coatings. So it just seems to me your claims are at odds with the facts. This is a complete distortion of the truth. First, NIST and FEMA engineers did not test steel from the impact/fire zones for impact. They performed hydrocode analyses that show the impact of the planes would have severed many structural members and severely compromised any fire protection coatings. And investigators found plenty of hard physical evidence that the impact severed and deformed dozens of structural members. Furthermore, as I already showed, using statements from the designer himself, the towers were NOT designed for impacts at "any" speed. They were designed for a relatively low speed impact. The difference in energy between the design impact and the actual impact was nearly an order of magnitude. Furthermore, Les Robertson, the head designer, also stated that fire following an impact was NOT considered in the design. I would be curious to know where you are getting your "facts", Mark. This is not true. NIST did not perform fire temp tests on steel from the area where their fire code models show the most intense fires occurred. What those tests do, actually, is confirm the fire codes because they show the temperatures in the tested locations agree with what the fire codes say the temperatures would have been in those locations. Furthermore, NIST did not find a reliable, robust method to test temperatures much above 250 to 300 C. They based their conclusions only on tests (using the condition of paint). Those tests would not have worked in regions where steel reached a 1000 C ... which is what the fire codes show happened and experts around the world believe happened. Like I said, Mark, explain how the Madrid fire in an office with no fuel produced temperatures of over 1400 F (measured)? Here's what real experts say, readers. http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html " The fires spread, and there are significant temperature variations throughout those areas where the fires are located, depending on the type and arrangement of combustible material being consumed and the availability of air supporting combustion. The advancing fires elevate the temperature within the tower. Future estimates will place it between 1,700º and 2,000ºF—further stressing the structure. At the 80th floor of WTC 2—in the northeast corner, where office furnishings had been deposited by the rapid path of the plane—the fire burns at such a high temperature that a stream of molten metal begins to pour over the side of the tower." http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixh.pdf “It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner. This is the area where the sustained fires were seen. Video records and photographs indicate that the material first appeared at 9:51:52 a.m. and continued to pour intermittently from the building until the time of collapse. Some of the material can be seen falling in Fig. H–21. Close-up video and photographs of the area where the material is pouring from have been examined and show that it is falling from near the top of window 80-256. The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had originally pooled on the floor above, that is, floor 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The fact that the material appears intermittently over a several minute period suggests that the floor was giving way bit by bit. The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggests that significant wreckage from the plane passed through the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed. Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 and closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temperature, but melt over a temperature range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of liquid increases. The Aluminum Association handbook (Aluminum Association 2003) lists the melting point ranges for the alloys as roughly 500 °C to 638 °C and 475 °C to 635 °C for alloys 2024 and 7075, respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca. 1,000 °C), and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.”
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.
And your proof for this is what? Again, what is your source for this? Here's what actually happened in the Madrid fire, folks: http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html The color of the smoke doesn't prove a fire is oxygen starved. This source discusses that fact at length: http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html Notice in that link all the photos of fires that clearly aren't oxygen starved which are still putting out dark grey or black smoke. And, for the record, NIST has not said that the WTC fire was oxygen starved ... everywhere. The face where the collapse was observed to start was clearly burning quite fiercely prior to the collapse. Something molten was even seen dripping from one corner of that face. And keep in mind that a wind was blowing into the building from that direction, providing a good source of oxygen. Finally, the fire was also no more fuel starved than the one in the Madrid tower. Both were office buildings filled with what office buildings are filled with. Is this dying out? The photos I posted aren't scientific proof? ROTFLOL! And they weren't hanging loose. They were sagging. Pulling on each end. Plus, the support they had provided to the outer face along the lengthwise dimension was gone. All NIST tested were floor systems with fireproofing intact. But the experts and their codes indicate that the fireproofing materials would have been damaged by the impact of the plane. Do you know what a boundary condition is? Really? This is picture of molten aluminum: So is this: And this: And this: And this: Well, here is an image of burning aluminum from a very credible source ( http://www.csar.uiuc.edu/~tlj/aluminum.htm): It didn't. The top clearly tilted as the collapse began. Well where are all the experts in fire and fire codes who agree with you? They seem to have no problem with the notion that temperatures in the WTC reached 1800 F. Care to prove this? Here are the reports you need: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P5SimulationofFiresinWTC1&2.pdf http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P5SimulatingtheCoupledFire.pdf http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P5ReconstructionofFires.pdf http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StructFireResp&Collapse2.pdf http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05161.pdf But not from the locations where the fire were most intense in the models. ROTFLOL! Readers ... see http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf First, Skilling was not the main designer. This is false. The chief structural engineer of record ... onsite in New York where the design was done ... was Leslie Robertson. Robertson relocated to New York City when the firm was awarded the WTC contract. He was the project engineer. Not Skilling. In fact, according to http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20I%20History.pdf "Robertson was the most influential engineer on the project and assumed the position of lead structural designer of the towers. Robertson had as much influence on the form of the building as anyone apart from Yamasaki himself." Just because Robertson had a boss (Skilling) in Seattle does not mean that Skilling was the head designer or aware of all design details in New York. Second, Skilling was talking about an analysis that was NOT part of the design of the towers. It was a back of the envelope "what if". And Skilling was only partially right in his white paper. The towers did indeed survive the impact ... no one denies that ... (in fact, NIST has said that had there not been a fire, the towers probably would have remained standing for a time) ... but he was wrong in concluding they would not suffer substantial damage. Eyewitnesses and MODERN computer modelling show that is untrue. We can't fault Skilling. He really had no means to determine that in the 1960s. Skilling didn't have access to the types of computer codes routinely used in building design and analysis today. Those code and the computers needed to run them weren't developed until the 70's and 80's and 90's. They couldn't do the sort of impact (or fire) analyses possible today. Such analyses show that the impacts must have shattered dozens of structural members, and both analyses and tests show that the impacts would have to have taken the fireproofing off many of the surviving structural members. And it is the loss of those fire coatings which is the key to collapse of the towers in the fires that followed. Demartini was a construction manager. Do you know what that means? He was NOT a structural engineer. There is a difference. In education. In expertise. In that statement he made, he completely overlooked the importance of velocity in the impact. It was NOT "designed" for a high speed impact. PERIOD. In fact, do you know what Demartini's degree actually was? ARCHITECTURE. Also, Demartini was not the construction manager during the construction of the towers. He was 14 when construction began. So I doubt he was all that familiar with their design. On the other hand, Leslie Robertson was. Leslie E. Robertson – " The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires." (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument) Leslie E. Robertson – "The twin towers of the World Trade Center were designed to resist safely the impacting by the largest aircraft of that time...the intercontinental version of the Boeing 707. In no small measure because of the high level of competence of the men and women of LERA, each of the towers resisted the impact of an aircraft larger than the 707. Yes, fire brought down the towers, but the structural integrity created by the engineers of LERA allowed perhaps thousands of persons to evacuate the buildings prior to the fire-induced collapse." (http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LesRobertson.html) By all means, provide your source for this claim. Besides this white paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. NIST stated that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” Third, Robertson is on record stating that reports that a 600 mph impact was considered in the design are flat out WRONG. According to Robertson, "It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark." It was designed for a 180 mph impact. Not 600 mph. Remember, the impact energy is not only a function of mass but velocity SQUARED. Robertson went on to note that the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated. Leslie Robertson is also quoted stating that "To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance." By all means. Provide your evidence that he has been caught lying. Not relevant. The impact of the planes dislodged much of that fireproofing. And that is in the NIST report too. No, they did not claim ALL the fireproofing was scraped off. As I've already pointed out, with sourced material from NIST, the samples tested were NOT from the locations where NIST fire models showed the peak temperatures. Furthermore, the methodology used by NIST to test samples preselected out any exposed to high temperatures because it required the paint still be basically intact. NIST said the method was limited to temperatures around 250 C. There are photos of some people in the impact hole on the face of the structure opposite from where the collapse clearly began. It proves nothing. The steel on the face of the building opposite the impact hole was not cool.
I saw these exact same posts at LP... what do you do, copy and paste them here? Those are not sagging floors. I proved that at LP and I'm not going to bother doing it again. Say, why don't you go to freedomunderground? They could use a shill to liven things up there.
#170. To: Critter (#167)
9/11 Revisited v.2 1hr 23m
Did you? Maybe the readers would like to go see a thread at LP where you and I discussed this? Here: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=151407&Disp=212#C212 The truth is the experts at NIST concluded those were sagging trusses in those images. And I haven't seen a quote from a single structural engineer anywhere claiming otherwise. Can you supply us with one, Critter? "New York Times, December 3, 2003 ... snip ... S. Shyam Sunder, who is leading the investigation for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Commerce Department, said, "We are seeing evidence of floors appearing to be sagging — or that had been damaged — prior to collapse." Still, Dr. Sunder said, "The relative role of the floors and the columns still remain to be determined in the collapse." According to an alternative theory of the collapse, the planes that smashed into the towers damaged the towers' vertical structural columns so severely that the buildings were virtually certain to fall. In that view, none of the buildings' many structural novelties — the towers were daring engineering innovations in their day — would have played a significant role in the collapses. Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory. In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below. Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said. "That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully." ... snip ... The studies of the floor trusses and the design of the towers are just two elements of the investigation, which is carrying out computer calculations of the collapses, rebuilding pieces of the towers in order to test them in real fires, and piecing together a highly detailed chronology of the response to the attack. In one set of laboratory tests concerning the floor trusses, researchers used earthquake simulators to violently shake assemblages much like the ceilings in the twin towers. The shaking was meant to simulate the impact of the aircraft. The findings, said Richard Gann, a senior research scientist at the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, showed that many of the fire-protecting ceiling tiles near the impact probably crumbled, exposing the undersides of the trusses directly to the fires." ************ Again, I hope the readers of your post will take a few minutes to visit this:
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)
#10. To: Kamala (#6)
(Edited)
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.
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.
#12. To: AGAviator, *9-11* (#10)
#59. To: Kamala, AGAviator, ALL (#12)
To AGAviator - According to NIST, the jet fuel was burned off in minutes and the WTC office floors were fuel poor and the fuel in a given area would burn up in around 20 minutes.
The west side of WTC 2 never even had any fire or heat at all.
The south tower fires were basically out in around 40 minutes. Much too short to heat any steel to any degree.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946czm.jpg 
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/fireST915b.jpg 
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/010thermNF942.jpg 
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east12.jpg 
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/9-72.jpg 
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/docs/wp_wtc29c.jpg NIST/FEMA engineers looked at and tested the steel from the impact/fire zones and it survived the impacts and preformed great, just as the main designers and architects said it would. The towers not only were designed for an airliner impact, but multiple impacts, at any speed and the fuel dumped involved.
NIST did fire temp tests on the steel from the impact area and found physical temps of 480- 600.
NIST again states that fuel was gone in minutes and it was a office fuel poor fire.
#87. To: BeAChooser, *9-11* (#59)
(Edited)
#149. To: Kamala, ALL (#87)
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.
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.
Aluminum is silvery in a liquid nature.
If there were no fires on the western side to heat all the structural steel of the WTC 2, how did it symmetrically collapse.
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.
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.
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.
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.
By that time, the north face was cool, and employees were standing in and around the impact zones.
How does cool structural steel fail?
#167. To: BeAChooser (#149)
Replies to Comment # 167.
#171. To: Critter (#167)
#176. To: Critter, ALL (#167)
Those are not sagging floors. I proved that at LP and I'm not going to bother doing it again.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 167.
