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: 37173
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 (1-178) not displayed.
.
.
.
#179. To: BeAChooser (#176)
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!"
Steven Jones is not a metallurgist. In fact, he spent the last 30 years working on nothing but sub-atomic particles and cold fusion. Seems reasonable. Did they do this experiment in daylight, Ricky? ROTFLOL! Did they add everything that might have been in the structure. For example, did they add sulfur from gypsum board to the mixture? Actually, this isn't true. If you watch this video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 which I posted earlier, you will see silver color in the stream of material once it gets away from window. Clear as day. This occurs from 12 seconds in the video to 33 seconds into the video. It is especially clear at about 32 seconds into the video. Another sequence of streaming material begins around 55 seconds into the video. From 0.57 to 1:07, there is clearly a silver look to the material pouring from the tower. And at 1:14 - 1:15 the material pouring from the corner of the tower is VERY CLEARLY SILVER, NOT ORANGE. So Steven Jones is lying.
Yeah BAC - you deceitful piece of shit - unlike aluminum, it started out red; sure, as it cooled, it turned to a more silver color - as steel would. Phase-shifting the events doesn't work. (Why feed this Mossadic troll called" BAC," anyway?)
Oh, I stand corrected ... there is one. ROTFLOL! BUT ... Do you know what Mr Bachmann's theory is regarding WTC7, Ricky? http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/how_could_they_plant_bombs_in_wtc.htm "The article went on to say that “Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack.” If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these “explosive tenants” could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building “without having anyone notice." Is there any documentary evidence to support the existance of these "explosive tenants"? No? And do you know Bachmann made his assertion that WTC7 probably was brought down by explosives after seeing only a few videos from the collapse during an interview with kindly conspiracists? He didn't take time to study the case, or research further, he just watched a few videos. And one more thing. Anything on record from Mr Bachmann regarding the towers ... WTC 1 and 2? The reason I ask is that a fellow European, Mr Jowenko, an expert in demolition, who also believes WTC 7 was a controlled demolition based on seeing limited material supplied by kindly conspiracists, is on the record stating that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were clearly NOT controlled demolitions. Hmmmmm.... So is Jowenko right about that, Ricky?
Like this aluminum?
Wrong color - asshole; "Red," remember.
Why is anyone feeding the BAC Troll?
You ex freepers have perverted the meaning of what a forum troll is. Troll does not mean someone who vigorously disagrees with you. Freepers have changed the meaning of troll to mean people who disagree with the established forum order. True trolls for example tend to post off-topic things to distrupt the forum. The word troll is often and easily misused as ad hominem attack against someone whose viewpoints and input cannot othewise be silenced.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Actually that speaks volumes about how sure he was that it was a demolition. I mean to put his reputation on the line like that after only seeing a few videos, which is all that exist of WTC7 collapsing, must mean that he was 100% sure that it was a demolition. He didn't need to see or investigate any other evidence, it was as plain as day to him.
God is always good! I am not surprised you know the true meaning of being a troll. You had a lot of practice.
God is always good! So, who is authorized to 'finalize' the definition of a "troll?" I don't give a rip about Effer. In my book, a troll is an intellectual predator. The ultimate/intended enemy of the truth, as God knows it.
I am not surprised you know how to mis-use the term troll and accuse those you want to shut down debate with as trolls - you must have a lot of practice.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
and you know the truth because you know god? That is the terminology of a fanatic - a dogmatist really - not a journeyman for truth who has to leave open the possibility he may be wrong if he is to be objective.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Seeing as they don't get a paycheck from the USG one way or another, then their opinions don't count. Matter of fact they do not exist. Them from the old Europe, Rummy says don't matter no more.
If it is that obvious, how come hundreds of other structural engineers and demolition experts out of the tens of thousands world wide haven't spoken up too? Being 100% sure doesn't mean he was right. It just might mean he was getting old. And what about Jowenko, Ricky? He was 100% sure that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were not controlled demolitions. You accept that?
I said as God know it, not in terms of my being on par with God. There's a radical difference, obviously.
Comments (220 - 467) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe 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.
#205. To: RickyJ, honway, ALL (#199)
by Steven E. Jones
"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."
We melted aluminum in a steel pan using an oxy-acetylene torch. ... snip ... We poured out the aluminum and all three of us observed that it appeared silvery, not orange! ... 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.
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.
#206. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#205)
which I posted earlier, you will see silver color in the stream of material once it gets away from window. Clear as day. This occurs from 12 seconds in the video to 33 seconds into the video. It is especially clear at about 32 seconds into the video. Another sequence of streaming material begins around 55 seconds into the video. From 0.57 to 1:07, there is clearly a silver look to the material pouring from the tower. And at 1:14 - 1:15 the material pouring from the corner of the tower is VERY CLEARLY SILVER, NOT ORANGE. So Steven Jones is lying.
#207. To: RickyJ, ALL (#200)
Except these notable structural engineers from Switzerland:
Hugo Bachmann
“In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished,” says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction.
#208. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#206)
unlike aluminum, it started out red; sure, as it cooled, it turned to a more silver color - as steel would.
#209. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#208)
Like this aluminum?
#210. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#207)
#211. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#210)
Why is anyone feeding the BAC Troll?
#212. To: BeAChooser (#207)
(Edited)
And do you know Bachmann made his assertion that WTC7 probably was brought down by explosives after seeing only a few videos from the collapse during an interview with kindly conspiracists? He didn't take time to study the case, or research further, he just watched a few videos.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#213. To: Destro (#211)
(Edited)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#214. To: Destro, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#211)
#215. To: RickyJ (#213)
I am not surprised you know the true meaning of being a troll. You had a lot of practice.
#216. To: SKYDRIFTER, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#214)
In my book, a troll is an intellectual predator. The ultimate/intended enemy of the truth, as God knows it.
#217. To: RickyJ (#200)
Well, there goes another one of your cherished delusions. All structural engineers do not agree with the government's theory.
#218. To: RickyJ, ALL (#212)
Actually that speaks volumes about how sure he was that it was a demolition.
I mean to put his reputation on the line like that after only seeing a few videos, which is all that exist of WTC7 collapsing, must mean that he was 100% sure that it was a demolition.
#219. To: Destro, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#216)
.
.
.