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: 37235
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 # 225.
#2. To: Kamala, ALL (#0)
This is from ImplosionWorld, experts in building demolition: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf "We have never, ever heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway." ************* http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm Implosionworld.com has received numerous inquiries from around the world requesting information and commentary relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, and specifically the felling of the World Trade Center towers. We have been contacted by media outlets, structural engineers, schoolteachers, conspiracy theorists and many others who are searching for answers and some “perspective” regarding these significant events that have evoked deep emotions and undoubtedly changed our world forever. The editors of implosionworld.com have created this page to answer a few of the most frequently asked questions that fall within our area of knowledge and expertise. But first we’d like to be clear in stating that any conversation relating to “implosions” and what causes structures to fail is undertaken with reverence and respect to those who perished as a result of this event. As many of our frequent web visitors are aware, Implosionworld.com’s offices are located close to New York City, and several of our employees were personally touched by this tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the families of those lost and injured, and our intent here is to help foster a constructive base of knowledge and understanding through education, while dispelling false rumors related to the attack. DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”? No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site. WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE? Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level. DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE? To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack. HOW DOES THIS EVENT COMPARE WITH A NORMAL BUILDING IMPLOSION? The only correlation is that in a very broad sense, explosive devices (airplanes loaded with fuel) were used to intentionally bring down buildings. However it can be argued that even this vague similarity relates more to military explosive demolition than to building implosions, which specifically involve the placement of charges at key points within a structure to precipitate the failure of steel or concrete supports within their own footprint. The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a “building implosion.” ***********
Photos of FDNY in Action Before & After WTC Buildings Collapsed
WTC Fire Covering Several Floors, Heating Metal Red-Hot
Ha, ha. That is an image of the south tower right after impact. That isn't the perimeter girders "red hot" its the jet fuel burning. According to NIST/FEMA around 4500 gals were avalable, and in less than 10 minutes all the jet fuel was gone, and also according to NIST, the towers were an oxygen and fuel poor environment. Oh, yeah, by the way, according to your Einstein train of logic from another thread, why are you quesioning or commenting on fire or structual issues? Are you fire or structual engineer or scientist? I won't waste my time with you long. You'll get your so richly deserved beating and I'll move on. Your LIHOP, bungling government theory won't hold up here.
Is that the expertise you consider necessary to make a judgement about the WTC tower collapse? Then why do you ignore the fact that except for one or two examples (and I'd be happy to chat about those), NO structural engineers, demolition experts, experts in steel or fire, or macro-world physicist have signed on to your demolition theory. Why do you think that is, Mark?
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
I said as God know it, not in terms of my being on par with God. There's a radical difference, obviously.
fair enough. But I do see dogmatism from tour side of the argument - Because I do consider the govts actions on that day suspicious enough to be suspect and thus I am open to the possibility of demolition charges being at play on 9/11 but I don't find the arguments compelling. There are plenty of non American engineers/architects etc who are not subject to American govt sanction around the world with access to high powered computers to run simulations and not one such group as come to the defense of the '9/11truth movement' to back up their claims.
If you don't even see the significance of the post 9-11 bin Laden family preferential treatment over all other Americans, add the 'handy' NORAD stand down; then you and BAC are of the same cut of cloth! A bunch of you guys showed up about the same time. Does this signal the Iran operation as a sure thing?? Are you guys "...in place?" How many more can we expect?
#228. To: SKYDRIFTER, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All 221 (#225)
I have repeatedly stated that I consider American elements within our govt to be directly or indirectly related to the events of 9/11 as guilty parties in the conspiracy. I find in incredible that after I mention this you wingnuts then accuse me of covering flak for the govt just cause I don't accept the demolitions allegations. I repeat : I have repeatedly stated that I consider American elements within our govt to be directly or indirectly related to the events of 9/11 as guilty parties in the conspiracy.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest "Pull" is a term used in building demolition...
#3. To: BeAChooser, All (#2)
#4. To: All (#3)
#6. To: AGAviator, *9-11* (#4)
#35. To: Kamala, Agaviator, ALL (#6)
To Agaviator - Oh, yeah, by the way, according to your Einstein train of logic from another thread, why are you quesioning or commenting on fire or structual issues? Are you fire or structual engineer or scientist?
#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
#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.
#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?
#214. To: Destro, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#211)
#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.
#219. To: Destro, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#216)
#221. To: SKYDRIFTER, RickyJ, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, BeAChooser, AGAviator, All (#219)
#225. To: Destro, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#221)
Dogmatism? Me? How 'bout pure patriotism; from an educated Viet Nam vet?
Replies to Comment # 225. you don't even see the significance of the post 9-11 bin Laden family preferential treatment over all other Americans, add the 'handy' NORAD stand down; then you and BAC are of the same cut of cloth!
End Trace Mode for Comment # 225.
