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: 45276
Comments: 467
WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It" Explanation Examined On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue: Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. ... In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building. Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building. [US Department of State] There is a problem with the above statement, namely there were no firefighters in WTC 7: "No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report] "There was no firefighting in WTC 7." [Popular Mechanics] "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons." [New York Times] Let's have a look at Silverstein's full statement: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." WMV video download (490kB) In summary, the fire department commander said the fire could not be contained, Silverstein said "the smartest thing to do is pull it", and the fire department made the decision to pull. "Pull" is a term used in building demolition... "We're getting ready to pull Building 6" ... "We had to be very careful how we demolished Building 6..." WMV video download (564kB) ...but the US Department of State contends that Silverstein's "pull it" statement refers to withdrawing firefighters from WTC 7. If this was the case then firefighters should have received a message which said something like "World Trade 7 is unsafe. Abandon the building and withdraw from the area." Okay, let's have a look at the language used by firefighters withdrawing from the area of WTC 7: "It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..." WMV video download (1 MB) The above indicates the message received by the firefighters was "We are going to demolish 7 World Trade. Clear the area." INDRA SINGH EMT: "...by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down." HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?" SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility..." [Prison Planet] It has also been stated that a 20 second radio countdown preceded the collapse of WTC 7. The statement by Silverstein Properties and the US Department of State also contends there were no deaths in WTC 7 because "pull it" was an evacuation order. This is factually incorrect: Speakers for voice evacuation announcements were located throughout the building and were activated manually at the Fire Control Center (FCC) [WTC 7 Report] It would be impossible to miss an evacuation order. "...I'm on top of building 7 just pulling out rubbish. Pulled out a Port Authority cop at about 11 o'clock in the morning..." WMV video download (597kB) "When 7 World Trade Center came down on Sept. 11, an agent on loan from Washington, special officer Craig Miller, perished..." [PDF download (link expired)] "The Secret Service New York Field Office was located in 7 World Trade Center ... Master Special Officer Craig Miller, died during the rescue efforts." [PDF download] The death of Master Special Officer Craig Miller is another inconsistency in the official explanation of Silverstein's "pull it" comment. Why aren't the numerous inconsistencies questioned by the mainstream media? See also: Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition The 9/11 WTC Collapses: An Audio-Video Analysis What Really Happened Email This Page To A Friend
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-163) not displayed.
.
.
.
#164. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, ALL (#160)
404 Not Found.
"The typical size of an Al particle is roughtly 18 microns in diameter." It is posting this type of nonsense that identifies you as an agenda driven "ends justifies the means" co-conspirator after the fact. Your dishonesty concerning this topic is repugnant.
One more time. AND if BeAChooser can show us why BLDG 7 was NOT mentioned in the 911 Report.....? ANSWER- That would prove "EXPLOSIVES" were used and then the next question would be "were they used in the Twin Towers?". "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
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.
How about giving me some *meaningful answers* to the following questions. Are buildings falling sideways also evidence of conspiracies? (2) Why are the overwhelming majority of the planet's scientific, engineering, and construction professionals to be believed when they allegedly say they've designed structures capable of withstanding the impact of a full-sized jet airliner, but not to be believed when they explain post-mortem why said structures didn't actually withstand said impact? Enjoy.
wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf "Finding 1a.8: The initiation of global collapse was first observed by the tilting of building sections above the impact regions of both WTC towers. WTC 1 tilted to the south (observed via antenna tilting in a video recording), and WTC 2 tilted to the east and south and twisted in a counterclockwise motion. The primary direction of tilt was around the weak axis of the core (north-south for WTC 1 and east-west for WTC 2). An earlier building performance study, performed by a private-public sector team with funding support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), concluded that the core failed first in WTC 1 based on vertical movement of the antenna observed in a video recording from due north that did not capture the antenna tilt due to the angle from which the video was shot. NIST is reevaluating this conclusion based on new visual information available from a different angle. " Now look carefully at this video (you may have to download it first): http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem5/911.wtc.1.demolition.east.1.wmv You will see clearly that the antenna tilted ... just like the top of the building was tilting as the collapse began. And if you look closely, you will see that the antenna doesn't shorten in length. It simply descends with the top of the descending building until obscured by the dust. If you can't see this, I can't help you. This video http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Shaking%20before%20WTC-1%20collapse.mpg also clearly shows the antenna is coming down at the same time and speed as the top portion of the building. You can clearly see that the length of the antenna above the top does not change as it descends, hence it is not sinking into the core (relative to the rest of the structure) as alleged.
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
9/11 Revisited v.2 1hr 23m "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
You are, of course, referring to this particular audio file: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html at the link you provided. Well, my response is this. Even professionals get sloppy in what they say at times (unfortunately feeding you conspiracy theorists). But facts are facts. The real time videos I've posted clearly show that the collapse of the tower took about 15 seconds. And even conspiracy theorists such as Jim Hoffman acknowledge this. And still photos that show large sections of structure descending well ahead of the collapsing level of the structure make it quite clear that the structure did not completely collapse in 9 or 11 seconds, i.e., free-fall speeds. I'm sorry to see that you will persist in this, honway, because then it makes it more difficult to take anything else you promote seriously. By the way, I hope your readers will take the time to watch the various presentations at this link.
Still, it's not burning silver. And the pictures of molten aluminum I showed also aren't silver. As was claimed.
Let's examine a few dishonesties in the above. This is written by someone who doesn't understand how fast buckling can occur. This is at odds with what firemen whose quotes I've posted say. Are the firemen part of the plot? He was referring to the firefighting effort. Let's ignore the fact that Ryan is presenting himself as an expert of structures, fire and steel. Let's just point out that he actually was fired for sending out a letter with his conspiracy theory to a conspiracy group on UL stationary. Big no no. Yes, an *expert* who has been only been studying sub-atomic particles and cold fusion for the last 30 years. And he wasn't even able to get his own peers at BYU to agree with him. ROTFLOL! False. Silverstein did not say "pull WTC 7". He said "pull it" referring to the firefighting effort. That's not what ImplosionWorld says. They say that is FALSE. And a few questions. Since the central assertion of this website seems to be that Silverstein planned this whole thing to make a bunch of money, how did he manage to arrange for the hijackers to fly planes into the buildings? Was he working with the hijackers? Was he also the one who planted the bombs you allege were in WTC 1 and WTC 2?
I'll repeat a second time: One more time. AND if BeAChooser can show us why BLDG 7 was NOT mentioned in the 911 Report.....? ANSWER- That would prove "EXPLOSIVES" were used and then the next question would be "were they used in the Twin Towers?".
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
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:
Thanks BAC for your efforts.
thanks BAC for being on top of everything. Did Goldi-Lox really kick you off of LP? You were a major part of that web-site. You'd think she'd realize that. I'm glad we have the premiere 911 expert of the world over here now. and he's been published on LP - so we know he's a real expert, not like those kooks.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
All you do is prove that the NIST report was a coverup. Anyone with a brain can see that those are not sagging floors.
I'm a kook and I was published on LP. Does anyone want my autograph?
wait a minute BAC. if you're a real expert (and I know you are), then you do not need to refer to web sites probably put up by KOOKs. Can't you find a regular mainstream media source, some real experts, not just somebody with a web site on the 'internet'. Internet is a bad source for information. I don't believe a word they say on that debunk web site. If you really are going to de-bunk the 911 conspiracy theories BAC as is your reputation, then don't use the internet as a source. Stick to the high-road. Post only from reputable newspapers, magazines & tv networks.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
BAC has never lost a single argument his entire life. Because every time BAC gets into it with anyone the other person always tires and gives up and quits arguing, and BAC is left still making his case - completetly unchallenged. He must be the smartest fellow in the world. Like on the other thread - BAC said that when the commercial jet hit the pentagon that the wings and tail section just fell off the plane before it hit the building. and that's why it left such a small hole in the building. Well, nobody's going to prove him wrong in this.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
He was referring to the firefighting effort. And he made his "smartest thing to do is pull it" comment right after saying "We've already had such a terrible loss of life." You'd think, if he was one of "them," he'd want more lives to be lost, not fewer...
Molten aluminum can, and does, appear different dependent on an the intensity of an external light source it seen in. With no, or very little, external light source, molten aluminum will appear reddish in color. However, in broad daylight it will appear silver in color because of its high reflective properties and it will reflect most of the light, thus it will appear silvery white. But you don't want to take my word for this; after all I am not a structural engineer. You better consult your local structural engineer before taking a stance on this.
God is always good! Ha! Ha! Your big problem with me is that I've READ large sections of the reports. I don't ccp 30 url's and 1000 word paragraphs from Popular Mechanics, Screw Loose Change and 911 Myths Debunked. I don't know if your being deceptive in your CCP, it just maybe that the sites you visit, exclude the damaging, conflicting results that are in the reports and quotes from others. Your already reduced to saying this is false, that is false, this is a lie, that is a lie. No, you just haven't READ the sections that have this information. Wait, I mean ccp. I don't ccp my information, I type it from memory because I've read the documents that contain it. You want sources? Do your own research. I'm not here to spend my time doing your work. You know what my qualifications are? I'm a concerned American citizen. I study 911 and the reports to point out all the deception, contradiction and false conclusions. The NIST report rests everything on computer modeling. NIST disgarded what real scientific evidence it had and preformed, because it didn't fit the pre determined conclusions. In almost every instance, NIST opted for the most extreme model, even though there was no proof of said conditions. NIST didn't even have enough proof on certain more realistic modeling. I have a very busy week of work and time is limited. I'll be around checking in briefly, so don't think I've gone away just yet. I have more FEMA/NIST deception for you. And don't get your lace panties in a bunch because I CCP this one reply.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Then I guess the folks around the world who design the structures we all use everyday must have no brains. Because there isn't a one of them who has challenged NIST on this point. And by the way, Critter, what's your explanation of the bowing observed in the towers long before they actually collapsed? If it wasn't caused by sagging floors? http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html http://www.geocities.com/representativepress/WTC1SouthFace1023.html
Now Red, I never said any such thing. Why mischaracterize what I actually said? Is your position that weak?
What leads you to believe that any of the images I posted were shot in the dark? This one, for instance: That's fine, except structural engineers everywhere seem to think the material that poured from the WTC tower shortly before it collapsed was probably aluminum. You have any quotes from some that disagree? Here what NIST's FAQ said on this matter: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm "NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface. " Seem's reasonable to me. Here's what the material streaming from the towers looked like: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 The video, by the way, shows several other things of interest. For example, at 33 seconds into it, it pans across the structure and you can see intense fires burning midway across the tower ... amazing, given that the conspiracists claim the fire was brief and localized (only a few small fires, according to the firemen, they say). And you can also clearly see that it fairly windy. Wind would have the tendency to drive oxygen into the structure helping feed the fires. But maybe it wasn't aluminum. Maybe it was steel as Dr Greening suggested.
Ron Brown put that stuff there after Clinton had him raised from the dead. You know that.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Ron Brown did it to distract from his moving the WMD to Syria. Only conspiracy kooks think otherwise. Right?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
That's why the moon landing never happened. Saddam used Apollo 11 to move the WMD. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a conspiracy kook.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
The huge Al Qaeda Base in Iraq before the war worked as the launch team.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
You'd think, if he was one of "them," he'd want more lives to be lost, not fewer... The bloviator needs to go back to school for logic classes. Since Silverstein is one of them, he of course wants the command central WTC7 to be pulled so that he can collect on that as well without pesky incrimminating evidence slowing down the insurance payout. What does he care about loss of life when there's billions to be made?
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
That's why we don't see Rob Brown's zombie anymore. Working as Saddam's astronaut gave him diaper rash. It all fits doesn't it.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Don't you mean the huge Al Qaeda base in Iran...afterall, that's where they hid the WMD.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
The LEM landed with some of it there after Rob Brown lifted off from Faluja. Just ask BAC. That's where they took the moon pictures too.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Jackie Onassis was flying Ron Brown's plane. She parchuted to safety just before it nosed in. ROTFLOL!! Kooks!! Clintonistas!!
Really? That's strange considering that molten aluminum does appear silvery white in broad daylight, and it was a clear sunny day on 9/11/2001. But then again, what the heck would a structural engineer know about molten aluminum anyway? It appears that these structural engineers that said this don't know or care about the facts here. So why take their word for anything if they would lie so easily?
God is always good! Seem's reasonable to me. Yeah, it might seem reasonable to a lot of people, but that doesn't make it a fact though. What I did is an experiment today, with two colleagues here, to test the NIST proclamation: "NIST concluded that the source of the molten material [observed flowing out of WTC2 before its collapse] was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. "Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface." NIST says that flowing aluminum with partially burned organic materials mixed in, "can display an orange glow." But will it really do this? I decided to do an experiment to find out. We melted aluminum in a steel pan using an oxy-acetylene torch. Then we added plastic shavings -- which immediately burned with a dark smoke, as the plastic floated on top of the hot molten aluminum. Next, we added wood chips (pine, oak and compressed fiber board chips) to the liquid aluminum. Again, we had fire and smoke, and again, the hydrocarbons floated on top as they burned. We poured out the aluminum and all three of us observed that it appeared silvery, not orange! We took photos and videos, so we will have the recorded evidence as these are processed. (I have now attached two videos showing clearly the silvery appearance of the flowing aluminum.) Of course, we saw a few burning embers, but this did not alter the silvery appearance of the flowing, falling aluminum. We decided to repeat the experiment, with the same aluminum re-melted. This time when we added fresh wood chips to the hot molten aluminum, we poured the aluminum-wood concoction out while the fire was still burning. And as before, the wood floated on top of the liquid aluminum. While we could see embers of burning wood, we observed the bulk of the flowing aluminum to be silvery as always, as it falls through the air. This is a key to understanding why the aluminum does not "glow orange" due to partially-burned organics "mixed" in (per NIST theory) - because they do NOT mix in! My colleague noted that it is like oil and water - organics and molten aluminum do not mix. The hydrocarbons float to the top, and there burn - and embers glow, yes, but just in spots. The organics clearly do NOT impart to the hot liquid aluminum an "orange glow" when it falls, when you actually do the experiment! (Refer to attached videos of our experiments.) In the videos of the molten metal falling from WTC2 just prior to its collapse, it appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery. We conclude that the falling metal which poured out of WTC2 is NOT aluminum. Not even aluminum "mixed" with organics as NIST theorizes. What is it? I have a bold hypothesis which still stands all our experimental tests to date, as described in my paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?. NIST should do experiments to test their "wild" theories about what happened on 9/11/2001, if they want to learn the truth about it. Sincerely, Steven E. Jones God is always good! Except these notable structural engineers from Switzerland: “In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished,” says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that “the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished.” At the ETH in the Institute of Structural Engineering (IBK) since 1969 Professor Hugo Bachmann has been active in in teaching and research in reinforced and prestressed concrete as well as in the design of bridges and buildings. Beginning in the late 70ies, he concentrated on the scientific field of structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, and he headed a group of collaborators and doctoral students until he retired in October 2000. The group was wellknown in the structural dynamics and earthquake engineering community world-wide and gained a high international reputation. In particular, 25 doctoral thesis, many research reports and numerous other publications such as books and articles in scientific journals were produced in the following fields: * Vibration problems in structures caused by rhythmical human body motions, machines, wind etc., experimental and theoretical work * Earthquake problems in structures and plants Conceptual seismic design, analysis, member design and detailing of new buildings, bridges and industrial facilities, assessment and if necessary seismic upgrading of existing structures, capacity design and deformation-oriented procedures in the case of reinforced concrete and masonry structures etc., experimental and theoretical work * Impact problems in structures Impacts by explosions, blasting, vehicles, stones, avalanches etc., experimental and theoretical work God is always good! I told you so, AG.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I've seen worse, LOL.
Oh ... so now the requirement is broad daylight? And what if the aluminum were to have other material entrained in it? Well then, name and quote some metallurgists who say that the material pouring out of the tower had to be steel. Who say it definitely wasn't aluminum.
The siding was an aluminum alloy; as pure aluminum wouldn't survive the corrosion of weather. Different critter, entirely. As to its melting - imagine somebody pulling the siding into the building, where it could be melted down, so as to run out of the building. DUMB! More BAC bullshit! (Why is anyone feeding this Mossadic troll, called BAC; anyway?) "BeOcho was no man Get BAC, Get BAC!"
Comments (205 - 467) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest http://1933key.com/news/911_wtc_collapse
#165. To: BeAChooser (#149)
#166. To: BeAChooser (#164)
(Edited)
#167. To: BeAChooser (#149)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#168. To: BTP Holdings (#148)
Such a typical response from someone who has no meaningful answer
(1) If buildings falling straight down are evidence of a controlled demolition conspiracy, why is the building in the photo I posted starting to rotate?
Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#169. To: BTP Holdings, honway, ALL (#161)
"Don't you guys know by now that was an optical illusion?"
Oh, puleeeeze. ROTFLOL! (My turn.)
Show us the videos and links.
#170. To: Critter (#167)
#171. To: Critter (#167)
#172. To: honway, ALL (#163)
Dr. Shyam Sunder of the NIST explain Tower 1 collapsed in 11 seconds and Tower 2 collapsed in 9 seconds.
#173. To: honway, ALL (#165)
"The typical size of an Al particle is roughtly 18 microns in diameter."
#174. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, ALL (#166)
http://1933key.com/news/911_wtc_collapse.html
The FEMA and NIST claims that the collapse was the result of a fire requires the fire be equally distributed throughout each of the entire floors of the building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of time, so that all the load bearings members would fail at the exact same moment.
Photographs of the fires in World Trade Center 7, as well as video of the building, show there was no raging inferno, but rather only small office fires on just two floors.
WTC leaseholder Mr. Silverstein said to the fire department commander "the smartest thing to do is pull it."
Ryan unquestionably qualifies as a whistleblower. Having been promoted to the top manager of Underwriter's Laboratories water testing division, Ryan was dismissed on November of 2004 after an e-mail from him to Dr Frank Gayle of NIST questioning the collapse of the twin towers became public.
by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack.
The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.
#175. To: BeAChooser (#174)
(Edited)
#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.
#177. To: BeAChooser (#176)
#178. To: BeAChooser (#176)
#179. To: BeAChooser (#176)
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?
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#180. To: Red Jones (#178)
he's been published on LP - so we know he's a real expert, not like those kooks.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#181. To: BeAChooser (#176)
http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm
#182. To: Critter (#180)
#183. To: BeAChooser (#174)
WTC leaseholder Mr. Silverstein said to the fire department commander "the smartest thing to do is pull it."
#184. To: BeAChooser (#173)
Still, it's not burning silver. And the pictures of molten aluminum I showed also aren't silver. As was claimed.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#185. To: BeAChooser, honway, formerlurker, wakeup, angle, critter, esso, skydrifter, Uncle Bill, Bill D Berger, BTP holdings, *9-11* (#149)
#186. To: Critter, ALL (#179)
Anyone with a brain can see that those are not sagging floors.
#187. To: Red Jones, ALL (#182)
BAC said that when the commercial jet hit the pentagon that the wings and tail section just fell off the plane before it hit the building. and that's why it left such a small hole in the building.
#188. To: RickyJ, ALL (#184)
Molten aluminum can, and does, appear different dependent on an the intensity of an external light source it seen in. With no, or very little, external light source, molten aluminum will appear reddish in color. However, in broad daylight it will appear silver in color because of its high reflective properties and it will reflect most of the light, thus it will appear silvery white.
You better consult your local structural engineer before taking a stance on this.
#189. To: BeAChooser (#188)
#190. To: BeAChooser (#188)
#191. To: BeAChooser (#188)
#192. To: BeAChooser (#188)
#193. To: AGAviator (#183)
And he made his "smartest thing to do is pull it" comment right after saying "We've already had such a terrible loss of life."
#194. To: BeAChooser (#188)
#195. To: Minerva (#192)
The huge Al Qaeda Base in Iraq before the war worked as the launch team.
#196. To: angle (#195)
#197. To: Minerva (#194)
It all fits doesn't it.
#198. To: BeAChooser (#188)
(Edited)
That's fine, except structural engineers everywhere seem to think the material that poured from the WTC tower shortly before it collapsed was probably aluminum.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#199. To: BeAChooser (#188)
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface. "
Experiments to test NIST "orange glow" hypothesis...
by Steven E. Jones, August 31, 2006
Videos Liquid Aluminum Part 1 Liquid Aluminum Part 2
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#200. To: BeAChooser (#35)
NO structural engineers, demolition experts, experts in steel or fire, or macro-world physicist have signed on to your demolition theory.
Well, there goes another one of your cherished delusions. All structural engineers do not agree with the government's theory.
Hugo Bachmann
Prof. em., Dr. sc. techn, Dr. h.c. Hugo Bachmann
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#201. To: AGAviator (#100)
#202. To: Destro, christine (#201)
I told you so, AG.
Bozo List: (1)[D]angle, (2) Kamala
#203. To: RickyJ, ALL (#198)
That's strange considering that molten aluminum does appear silvery white in broad daylight, and it was a clear sunny day on 9/11/2001.
But then again, what the heck would a structural engineer know about molten aluminum anyway?
#204. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#203)
Who say it definitely wasn't aluminum.
He said he was a loner
But he knew he couldn't last.
.
.
.