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: 36699
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 (1-248) not displayed.
.
.
.
#249. To: SKYDRIFTER (#238)
Nearly forgot that one; thanks for the reminder! So convenient, all the names were spelled correctly in the morning newspapers.
In Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's book about the Iraqi war, Plan of Attack, Lt. Gen. Tommy Franks, who was in charge of the operation, famously called Feith the "dumbest f****** guy on the planet."
Because your side has all t hose planes slamming into buildings built the same way to compare results - oops you don't.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Black smoke? Well then it must have been oxygen starved and not very hot. (sarcasm)
Unlike most, you have my position about Bush and Ron Brown correct, but you are not correctly stating my position in the second part. I've never suggested that Bush would never be involved in ANY kind of 9/11 shennanigan. I'm only stating on this thread that the notions of bombs in the WTC towers and no Flight 77 are nonsense as proven by the facts.
I stand corrected
Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”
Just curious. What do you think caused the bowing seen in the WTC towers before collapse? http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html http://www.geocities.com/representativepress/WTC1SouthFace1023.html It was never anticipated that any given floor would be impacted by a large commercial jet traveling at such a velocity that the energy of impact would be over 7 times that of the design impact. It was never anticipated that the impact would spread jet fuel that would instantenously engulf huge sections of the tower in fires that would then un-fought because they were so high up and because they didn't anticipate the plane impact would cut the water lines to the sprinkler system. They never anticipated that 20+ stories of tower would suddenly drop onto the next floor and the next and the next and the next. The reality is that no steel skyscraper on earth could withstand such extreme loads. It's unlikely that a reinforced concrete one could survive having the top 20+ floors dropped on the floor below, either. But it is the deformations that caused the problem. Not shattering. That's not true. The steel portions of the Windsor Tower in Madrid did just that.
Bowing? It appears to be an indentation from the plane impact. Have you ever been to the scene of plane crash?
ROTFLOL! The photo above shows the side of the tower OPPOSITE the side the jet hit.
And? That's even stronger evidence of an impact entrance. No steel beam turning into wet noodle conspiracy here, neo….
No it doesn't. WTC 7 didn't bow, but it came straight down in under 7 seconds. WTC 7 was no small building, it had just as much office space as one of the WTC twin towers had. Its base was much wider, so its weight was dispersed over a larger area. If WTC 7 was a demolition, it is only reasonable to conclude that the twin towers were too. A bowing building would not equal a complete collapse any way. What you are seeing is only the outer pereimeter columns that our bowing, not the core. The core's primary function was to bear the entire vertical load of the building, hence its entire weight. Of course it was over engineered to handle at least twice the weight of the towers, so the external bowing might have caused some floors to collapse, but that wouldn't have severely affected the cores ability to keep holding the rest of the building up.
God is always good! Here is what a real pancaked building looks like: Notice the concrete is for the most part intact. It did not turn to dust like the WTC tower's concrete did.
God is always good! I saw a picture of bombs on flight 77.
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
BeOcho, For all your phase-shifting and overkill in distorting the context of details, the fact remains that three buildings controlled/owned by one person free-fell to the ground. There is no debate possible, as to all three being controlled demolition. Just follow the money. That didn't go to rebuilding the WTC properties; it went into Larry's pockets. In New York, arson is historically termed "Jewish Lightning." The "Dancing Art Students" attest to that, add the Irraeli-only warnings. No rational person dares to think otherwise. All your disinformation attempts can't change that. The audio is there, qualified observers reported the obvious and it was sufficiently captured on videotape. You're a fucking LIAR - BAC! Nothing is going to change that. You deserve to go to prison for all your attempted deceit - take Goldi with you. You two are a perfect match - except for your disgust for women. America now has to fear War Crime charges which will eventually stick like super-glue; and you can't approve quickly enough. You're a slimy piece of shit, BAC!
I don't think any person should go to prison for their views alone. We should not outlaw free speech whether it is false/true or a combination of the two. Let's not copy the Zionists here.
God is always good! so fundamental
Here is a picture of a bridge in Lebanon that was hit with Israeli missiles last summer. Note, it fell further than the height of one floor of the WTC towers and had a missile propelling it down at a faster than gravity rate, yet the concrete did not turn to dust upon hitting the ground. Supposedly the concrete in the WTC towers turned to dust after falling the height of a mere floor's distance with only gravity pulling it down. And supposedly even though it turned to dust it somehow managed to sever all 47 core columns every few floors.
God is always good! Hey! Check out this song on WTC 7/911.
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
Great post. WTC 7 was 5 times higher than wide. A "normal" failure would have been that it would have tipped over, not a classic bottom up implosion in 6.5 seconds, or 1/8th of a second per floor.
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
That makes it even more implausible. NIST states that the majority of the damage and heat was seen at that impact holes, but the "bowing" occurs on the opposite south face of WTC 1, where there was little damage or any evidence of "widely dislodged" fireproofing, and where the fires had only around 40 minutes to "sag" the trusses and "pull inward" the outer columns.
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
Never in any fire history of structural steel highrises has "bowing" caused a collapse of a building in 1/5th-1/6th of a second per floor. NISTs "bowing" causing the towers "poised" for "global, progressive, gravity" collapse, only exists in a virtual computer cartoon world.
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
On another note. I've heard about the research you have done on Ron Brown. I would be interested in reading some, when I have some spare time.
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
Now, don't get worked up about this direct reply to you because it will be a one time only. Your 3 replies in this thread are the most sense you have made in months. Swarthyguy believes along the same lines as you, that the people/paper trail of 911 research is more proveable than the forensic side of 911. Thats fine. The more evidence the better. The difference between you and him is tactics. While he may not research the buildings etc., he feels that more effort should be in the paper/people trail. I have never seen him argue against the demolition/forensic side. Unlike you, who completely believes there were no explosions, demolitions, implosions etc..All research on both sides needs to be done. The 911 Commission Report was a whitewash of the people/paper trail. The FEMA/NIST Report was a whitewash of the forensic evidence.
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
not as good as 'Ten Second Freefall' by 3ShoesPosse, but great lyrics anyway.
Good catch Mark. ANother attempt by BAC to spin government BS.
The truth movement does not take the houses of sticks and straw built by the three little pigs and equate them to WTC either, like you are doing with your pathetic comparison.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
I am open to forensic evidence and I have yet to see any evidence that can't be explained via a non explosion/implosion/demolition theory. Also, you all who hold to the explosion/implosion/demolition theory are all over the place - if you make a charge that Enron investigation was jeopardized by the loss of evidence on 9/11 then prove it - let me see where you make such a claim from? When I made my claims I alway - always - always linked the source of such a claim.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I made no comparison - In another thread I asked where the claim that Enron evidence was lost on 9/11 came from. Make a claim - back it up. Simple - I googled - saw no such back up - have at it. I never see any authoritatove people do any such think which is baffling.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You are aware that the SEC and their documents related to active investigations were housed in WTC7, aren't you?
The charge was SPECIFIC to Enron had evidence against them there - so unless Enron was doing everyone a favor....
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Have you seen any news reports concerning Enron AFTER 9/11?
You are a shill who resorts to out and out lying. "First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
yes - lots.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Looks like wet noodles to me.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
If you look at what the Madrid tower did you will see that even in a "normal" failure tipping over does not occur. Tipping over has only ever occurred with very high magnitude Earthquakes, and even then it is only partial most of the time. If any floors on the towers did collapse due to the planes hitting them and the resulting fires then it would not have caused tipping over or a complete collapse. It would have only resulted in some debris falling down the side of the tower from part of the floor crashing down to the one below it. I don't think a whole floor would have fallen in one piece anyway. As matter of fact I highly doubt that is even possible unless all the joints holding it up were all broken simultaneously, a near impossibility unless carefully planned. So a falling floor would not have come down parallel to the floor beneath it, but rather at an angle and even then probably only a partial piece. I highly doubt these floors were all one giant slab of concrete around the core, so it was probably at least 4 different segments, possibly many more, that made up one floor. Which of course makes the progressive collapse theory that much harder to be happen just by chance alone. BeAChooser does post some good material from time to time. Most of the time he seems unaware that he is providing material that does not help the government’s theory but rather hurts it. He does have a point about most structural engineers backing the government’s theory though. That is a mystery that I have still not figured out, but I am sure that it must have something to do with skyscraper structural engineers needing jobs that are partially or fully funded by the governments around the world. Those responsible for 9/11 are definitely in control of our media, so I would not be surprised if they also had a huge amount of control over people who depend on them for their livelihood, like most high-rise structural engineers do.
God is always good! What about skyscraper structural engineers who work for countries not on good terms with the USA like in Singapore or Venezuela or India or China and plenty of examples from nations where they don't care about Americans or America and are hostile to America? I keep saying that I feel the govt of the USA loves the demolition theory people because they help discredit any real investigation in the very real connections within our govt to the terror cells linked around 9/11. To me the demolition theories are like looking at a murder victim's body and having an argument over whether the bullet that everyone saw being fired killed the victim or if someone poisoned him before hand with a poison that only affected the victim just as the bullet entered him because the bullet wound would not have been enough to kill him.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Good point. And one of the oldest tricks in an agent provocateur's book is to accuse the people who question him of working for "The Man." That said, the USG did not direct and control the people doing 911 during 911. It was a case of 2 groups using each other for a number of years, and the group the USG thought it was using turned out to be more cunning than its supposed "masters."
That is the theory I am operating under - though I leave open the possibility that the plot was found out and some elements allowed it to be carried out making sure that they were not blocked in their plot.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You are pissy because your pet theories concerning the background of the hijackers is not as important to some people as the false flag operations involving th demolition of the pentagon and the World Trade Center? I submit that should what you say be true, there s room to explore both situations and investigate both. Nine Eleven was an inside job, and unmasking the lies the Bushies, Smirkies and Rumbos and getting to the bottom of the lies around nine eleven regarding the demolition will have a positive effect on finding th truth about your contentions concerning the back grounds of the hijackers.
Comments (290 - 467) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latesthow about the unscathed hijacker passports sitting atop the rubble? :P
#250. To: angle (#242)
Pathetic non-relevant comparison
#251. To: Destro, angle, esso, all (#240)
A spokesman for the fire service said the blaze had resulted in a black smoke cloud which could be seen for miles.
#252. To: Hayek Fan, ALL (#245)
This is a guy that believes that Bush is complacent in helping to cover up the murder of Ron Brown and other Clinton crimes yet would NEVER be involved in any kind of 9/11 shennianigans.
#253. To: BeAChooser (#252)
I've never suggested that Bush would never be involved in ANY kind of 9/11 shennanigan. I'm only stating on this thread that the notions of bombs in the WTC towers and no Flight 77 are nonsense as proven by the facts.
#254. To: Hayek Fan (#253)
#255. To: angle, esso, ALL (#230)
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900º C (1,500- 1,700º F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600º C (1,100º F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).
High-rise buildings are over-engineered to have strength many times greater than would needed to survive the most extreme conditions anticipated.
The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters.
However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
#256. To: christine, ALL (#235)
how about the unscathed hijacker passports sitting atop the rubble?
#257. To: BeAChooser (#255)
#258. To: Jethro Tull, ALL (#257)
Bowing? It appears to be an indentation from the plane impact. Have you ever been to the scene of plane crash?
#259. To: BeAChooser (#258)
#260. To: BeAChooser (#255)
(Edited)
BowingDebunksExplosives.html
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#261. To: BeAChooser (#258)
(Edited)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#262. To: BeAChooser (#252)
I'm only stating on this thread that the notions of bombs in the WTC towers and no Flight 77 are nonsense as proven by the facts.
#263. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#258)
#264. To: SKYDRIFTER (#263)
You deserve to go to prison for all your attempted deceit - take Goldi with you.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#265. To: RickyJ (#261)
Notice the concrete is for the most part intact. It did not turn to dust like the WTC towers concrete did.
#266. To: BeAChooser (#258)
(Edited)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#267. To: christine (#265)
#268. To: RickyJ (#260)
#269. To: BeAChooser, Jethro Tull, *9-11* (#258)
#270. To: BeAChooser, Skydrifter, noone222, Ricky J., *9-11* (#255)
#271. To: BeAChooser (#252)
#272. To: Destro, Skydrifter, Ricky J., Christine, Angle, Formerlurker, Honway, *9-11* (#241)
#273. To: Kamala, ThreeShoesPosse (#267)
#274. To: Kamala (#269)
#275. To: Destro (#250)
Because your side has all t hose planes slamming into buildings built the same way to compare results - oops you don't.
#276. To: Kamala (#272)
Unlike you, who completely believes there were no explosions, demolitions, implosions etc..All research on both sides needs to be done.
#277. To: angle (#275)
(Edited)
The truth movement does not take the houses of sticks and straw built by the three little pigs and equate them to WTC either, like you are doing with your pathetic comparison.
#278. To: Destro (#277)
I made no comparison - In another thread I asked where the claim that Enron evidence was lost on 9/11 came from. Make a claim - back it up. Simple - I googled - saw no such back up - have at it. I never see any authoritatove people do any such think which is baffling.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#279. To: FormerLurker (#278)
You are aware that the SEC and their documents related to active investigations were housed in WTC7, aren't you?
#280. To: Destro (#279)
The charge was SPECIFIC to Enron had evidence against them there - so unless Enron was doing everyone a favor....
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#281. To: Destro (#277)
(Edited)
Here's your house of sticks.
#282. To: All (#281)
#283. To: FormerLurker (#280)
Have you seen any news reports concerning Enron AFTER 9/11?
#284. To: angle (#281)
Here's your house of sticks
#285. To: Kamala (#268)
(Edited)
A "normal" failure would have been that it would have tipped over, not a classic bottom up implosion in 6.5 seconds, or 1/8th of a second per floor.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#286. To: RickyJ (#285)
He does have a point about most structural engineers backing the government’s theory though. That is a mystery that I have still not figured out, but I am sure that it must have something to do with skyscraper structural engineers needing jobs that are partially or fully funded by the governments around the world.
#287. To: Destro (#286)
(Edited)
I keep saying that I feel the govt of the USA loves the demolition theory people because they help discredit any real investigation in the very real connections within our govt to the terror cells linked around 9/11.
Bozo List: (1) [D]angle, (2) Kamala
#288. To: AGAviator (#287)
That said, the USG did not direct and control the people doing 911 during 911. It was a case of 2 groups using each other for a number of years, and the group the USG thought it was using turned out to be more cunning than its supposed "masters."
#289. To: Destro (#286)
.
.
.