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: 37373
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 (1-296) not displayed.
.
.
.
#297. To: AGAviator (#296)
Cobra Commander is a hard task master.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
The Madrid fire is a bad example for both sides trying to prove a point. The entire design, material and steel used was very different from the WTC. As far as tipping, I was referring to WTC 7. The government position is that there MAY have been a giant scoop from 10-20 stories high and 1/4-1/3 the width of the south face of WTC 7. NIST has handed the whitewash investigation of WTC 7 off to a DOD contractor. NIST is full of government paid engineers and outside engineers that have contacts in the energy industry. Here is my take in a nutshell of what will be found out about WTC 7. They will go ahead with the extensive damage theory, claiming massive structural damage to key primary girders, along with "widely dislodged" fireproofing, the pooling of diesel fuel burning for hours, "triggered" a "Rube Goldberg" effect that caused ALL the support within WTC 7 to fail, resulting in a symmetrical collapse of the outer perimeter in 6.5 seconds. Of course, none of this will have any scientific, forensic proof. It will be all done in computer modeling. Just as WTC 1 and 2 were. The NIST report has no scientific, forensic evidence to back its computer modeling. NIST treated its 20 million dollar, 3 year "investigation", as a research project.
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
hi Corn Flake Girl, welcome to 4. it's nice to have another 911 truther on board. ;)
Thanks. I like your forum's courage and open realization of what is happening in this country that we need to be aware of and to address. Ignoring the crimes of 9-11 will not protect us and is not wise. And there is a disturbing -- and predictable -- trend in this country for the perps who did this to try to strong arm the truth from people by any means nessesary by the lackeys of those who are dismayed the truth is out there and that many have wised up to the crap going on nationally and internationally. Another forum I decided to get involved with is too mean spirited and has operatives whose game is to degrade the discussion on 9-11 into high school grade name calling or aggressive campaigns to advance the Bush crime syndicate's desire to degrade the truth as being mere conspiracy. I don't have time for that, so here I am.
BBC Hit Piece a Tissue of Lies, Bias and Emotional Manipulation Outraged truth community demands answers from Guy Smith, immediate retractions and apologies urged, savage agenda driven yellow journalism an insult to the truth The BBC's Conspiracy Files documentary about 9/11 was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end. Producer Guy Smith should be ashamed of himself for inflicting this travesty of yellow journalism upon the 9/11 truth movement and he is assured to encounter a vociferous and outraged response in its aftermath. Separated into two categories below are a number of questions intended to highlight Guy Smith's production for what it was - a deliberate hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement structured around fallacy, lying by omission and overwhelming bias. We invite Mr. Smith to respond to these questions and the hundreds of others that are already being asked by furious and informed community of people who were made sick to their stomachs by Smith's yellow journalism hatchet job. GROSS FACTUAL INACCURACIES AND YELLOW JOURNALISM 1) Why did the BBC use a thoroughly debunked graphic animation from PBS' Nova show to illustrate the collapse of the twin towers? This graphic portrays the tower collapsing at a rate of ten floors every six seconds. For this to be accurate, the tower's 110 floors would have taken 66 seconds to completely collapse. In reality, the towers collapsed in just 14-16 seconds at the extreme end of the estimation. The graphic also erroneously depicts the floors collapsing without resistance, which could not have happened if the building's collapse came as a result of fire damage alone. Furthermore, the thoroughly debunked "pancake theory" holds that the core column remained upright and static as the animation shows when in reality the entirety of the towers, including the concrete support structures, were pulverized into small pieces and dust. A video explanation of the erroneous Nova animation is included below. Does producer Guy Smith consider using an animation that portrays a tower collapsing in 66 seconds an accurate reflection of how the twin towers collapsed? Will producer Guy Smith retract this error before his show is aired again? Will the BBC announce a retraction of this error as is common practice for proven factual inaccuracies carried in BBC programming? 2) Why did the program claim that debris from Flight 93 having been found 8 miles from the crash scene was a factual error on behalf of 9/11 skeptics? Both the FBI and the NTSB admitted that mail the plane was carrying had been found 8 miles from the crash scene. Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Crash debris found 8 miles away. 3) Why did the program claim that the collapse of Building 7 resulted in no casualties without mentioning the statements of both an eyewitness at the scene and Congressman Otter who both publicly stated that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse? 4) Why was footage filmed at ground zero on 9/11 of a firefighter discussing the damage to Building 7's sprinkler system used to support the notion that fires caused the building to collapse while footage and testimony attesting to the notion that Building 7 was deliberately brought down, that firefighters had been warned in advance that it was going to be brought down, and that bombs had brought the building down, uniformly ignored? Why was the testimony of Craig Bartmer, a former NYPD official who states he heard bombs tear down Building 7 as it collapsed , omitted from the final edit? Why were the dozens and dozens of references to bombs exploding at all levels of the twin towers including the basement areas made by ground zero rescue workers and firefighters, caught both on camera and tape recorded from the firefighter's communication radios, omitted from the final edit? Why was there no effort made to include the testimony of William Rodruigez, who was a witness to underground explosions in the basement levels? 5) Why during brief coverage of the Building 7 issue were the words of Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex who told a September 2002 PBS documentary that he and firefighting chiefs decided to "pull" the building, not even mentioned? Why were the hundreds of millions of dollars Silverstein made from the collapse of this building alone not mentioned as a plausible motive for its demolition? 6) Why was coverage of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7 narrowed into a mere debunking of the "squib" issue and testimony from the dozens at the scene who both saw and heard explosions completely omitted. In debunking the squib issue, why did the documentary fail to point out the fact that such emissions could be seen exiting the towers many floors below the collapse point? 7) Why were the numerous unprecedented wargames that were conducted on 9/11 dismissed as "routine" when they were anything but? Though the show admitted that such wargames slowed down the response to the hijacked airliners, they refused to ask who was in control of the wargames and refused to mention the fact that some of these wargames involved planes crashing into high profile buildings and the huge improbability of such a coincidence occurring. MANIPULATIVE AND BIASED EDITING AND PRODUCTION 1) If the documentary was intended to be a balanced piece, why were only three individuals who represented the 9/11 truth movement included in the final edit compared to at least thirteen individuals who advocated the official story or the incompetence whitewash? Why were individuals who represented the 9/11 truth movement and were interviewed by the BBC for this program, such as former NYPD official Craig Bartmer and Jim Marrs not included in the final edit? Does Guy Smith consider a more than four to one ratio of debunkers to 9/11 skeptics a balanced appraisal? 2) How can Guy Smith justify using the strong implication on numerous occasions throughout the documentary that questioning the official story of 9/11 is insulting and hurtful to the victims? How can he justify such a blatant and cynical attempt to emotionally sway the viewer when Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 families, is on the record as stating that half of the victims he represents are asking the same questions as 9/11 skeptics? How can Smith justify using such virulent and propagandistic techniques to bury allegations of a 9/11 cover-up in the face of the fact that it was an admitted government cover-up in the very hours after 9/11, the EPA toxic dust scandal, that is now responsible for the debilitating illnesses that are killing off 20% of the first responders, firefighters and other 9/11 heroes? Is Smith's outright attempt to pardon the government of a 9/11 cover-up not itself an insult to the victims in those circumstances? 3) Does producer Guy Smith consider it ethical on the part of a so-called journalist to laugh off and dismiss the claims made by 9/11 skeptics before filming for his documentary has even finished or editing even begun? Can Smith be trusted to produce a balanced documentary when he has already announced his personal bias months before the program is completed or aired? 4) Why did producer Guy Smith decide to devote an inordinate amount of time to theories that are not even embraced by the majority of the 9/11 truth movement, such as the Jewish conspiracy angle, the C-130 Pentagon angle and the Shanksville "no plane" angle? Were such topics given dominant coverage even over core issues such as controlled demolition, Building 7, wargames and the stand down, which are uniformly embraced as the most hardcore evidence by the vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement? Does such a focus on nebulous issues prove the charge leveled at the BBC that Smith's production was nothing more than a strawman hit piece that sought to distort and debunk fringe elements that are not even embraced by the majority of the 9/11 truth movement? As the Angirfan blog states, "Imagine a historian trying to prove that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or that George Bush was a good president. The bad historian would select only the parts of the evidence which suited his bad theory; and the bad historian would give lots of time to the spooky sources, and very little time to the honest sources. It was the BBC that led the way in telling us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Now the BBC is trying to support the Bush version of 9-11." 5) Why were 9/11 skeptics afforded only brief, insubstantial and fleeting air time whereas debunkers were given the chance to speak uninterrupted at length? Why were the statements of debunkers subsequently supported in the narrative with documentation yet the statements of 9/11 skeptics were not, even though we know the producer was presented with such documentation. For example, when Alex Jones discussed a desire on the part of the Neo-Cons to have a 9/11 style event in order to launch a pre-planned war, the Project for a New American Century documents which clearly outline an agenda were not shown on screen or even mentioned. Furthermore, Alex Jones was told directly by the producers that any discussion of Operation Northwoods, which is a cornerstone bedrock of the 9/11 truth community, would not be included in the final edit. 6) Why was Dylan Avery filmed listening to the interviewer's question about the coroner's statements while looking nervous? This was a blatant attempt to portray Avery as dishonest and was not mirrored during any of the interviews with the debunkers. 7) Why were the debunkers referred to in sympathetic and sober terms whereas the personalities of the 9/11 skeptics were attacked? For example, Popular Mechanics were called a "no nonsense, nuts and bolts" publication (when in reality it is owned by the original progenitors of yellow journalism, Hearst Publishing) whereas Alex Jones was called an "evangelist" and Dylan Avery a "self-confessed dropout." Surely if this documentary was intended to have been a balanced piece, it would be left to the viewer to make up their mind about the character of the individuals featured in the program and not have it dictated to them by the sardonic female narrator. 8) Why were the 9/11 skeptics filmed and portrayed in an unflattering light whereas the debunkers were lent credence and authority as a result of the style and location of their filming? For example, debunkers were filmed at ground zero, Washington DC and inside military fighters, whereas 9/11 skeptics were filmed in untidy offices and, in the case of Alex Jones, a conference hall that was portrayed as an evangelic religious cult gathering. Why was Jim Fetzer positioned so close to the camera so as to make his gestures and facial expressions seem wild and overexerted? As another blog points out, When Fetzer and Avery were shown talking to the camera, they were overwhelmingly depicted as single-minded and emotional, with a forcible attitude of 'you're either with us or against us', which was intended to subliminally turn the viewer off them - and thus discredit their points. t was almost half an hour before we got to see Alex Jones, who was introduced when he was yelling to an audience about the New World Order. The BBC said he was like an 'evangelist' -- this was another underhanded technique where the BBC tried to associate alternative thought with religious fundamentalism. 9) Why were scientists who represented the debunkers interviewed and yet scientists who represented the 9/11 skeptics, such as Professor Steven Jones or Kevin Ryan, omitted from the documentary? Why did Smith seek to interview former government officials who represented the debunking side and yet omitted any testimony from former government officials representing the 9/11 skeptics side, such as Andreas von Buelow or David Shayler? 10) How can Guy Smith have confidence in his conclusion that Osama bin Laden ordered the attacks when even the world's leading expert on Bin Laden now says that the alleged "confession tape" is a fraud and the individual seen in the video is not Bin Laden? I will now quote at length the excellent observations made by the 'Debunking the BBC' blog. This is just a sampling of the extensive rebuttal that is fully sourced and supported at the blog website. There was a strong 'anti-conspiracy' theme throughout the programme. The proponents on the official story were given much more time to discuss their ideas and their opinions, and there was no camerawork or editing to make them appear less than respectable. There were only three truth-seeker proponents and yet they were vastly outnumbered by the proponents of the official story. Popular-Mechanics was introduced as a 'no-nonsense' magazine, despite having it's article disputed and debunked. The programme began with the narrator saying the theories were offensive to those families affected by 9-11 - a logical fallacy called an 'appeal to emotion'. The programme shows us bent WTC steel columns and damaged vehicles in a warehouse, then proceeds onto the official story, whilst showing the alleged hijackers on CCTV at an unnamed airport. Then casualties were discussed, videos of shocked people were shown, and emotional phone calls were aired. This is all emotional manipulation, and it is not related to pure theory, as it does not prove or disprove anything. This did not dissuade the BBC however. There were scientists used to support the official story, but no counter- scientists shown, such as Professor Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin PhD and others [19]. It was continually stated that blaming the government was scapegoating, yet it is precisely that act which was carried out by the mainstream media and the authorities when blaming Bin Laden. When Fetzer and Avery were shown talking to the camera, they were overwhelmingly depicted as single-minded and emotional, with a forcible attitude of 'you're either with us or against us', which was intended to subliminally turn the viewer off them - and thus discredit their points. Before Avery began talking, they called him a college 'dropout', and said he made his money selling Loose Change. Avery is shown saying he does not care what the debunkers say - we believe this clip to be out of context, and that Avery was disagreeing with something else. Fetzer was always pictured close-up when talking, to make the viewer uncomfortable and to ensure his gestures were exaggerated beyond what was reasonable - a technique that could be used to subliminally turn the viewers off him. There was no explanation made of Fetzer's conflicts with other prominent members of the truth movement regarding his more unusual theories. Avery and Fetzer were used the most. Alex Jones was not, despite the fact that Alex Jones is one of the more eloquent, respected, and knowledgeable people on these matters. It was almost half an hour before we got to see Alex Jones, who was introduced when he was yelling to an audience about the New World Order. The BBC said he was like an 'evangelist' -- this was another underhanded technique where the BBC tried to associate alternative thought with religious fundamentalism. There were several baseless phrases delivered throughout the show, like: "secrecy breeds conspiracies", it is as if they tried to compare the spread of conspiracies to the spread of bacteria. The X-Files guy said that debunking articles aren't liked by some as they take away those people's 'security blanket', and he said conspiracies are present because we've been lied to before, and that 'cynicism and hopelessness still infects us'. He also said 'we're all storytellers', compares conspiracy theory to 'myth', says conspiracists simplify things, and that conspiracies are pleasing to certain people with a political agenda. The BBC tried to say that believing President Bush was a murderous madman was 'acceptable' to conspiracists, but there was no mention of how widespread that view truly was across society. There was also an attempt to smear conspiracy theory as merely 'Chinese whispers' on the internet which quickly grew to ridiculous proportions. There was a camera shot of a worker outside the Pentagon; he said: 'flawed people need to make a name for themselves', regarding the Pentagon theories. This appeared to smear all truth-seekers, regardless of whether they accepted the Pentagon theory or not, it also wrongly suggested that truth-seekers wanted fame alone. The BBC allowed scientists to do a 3D simulation of the Pentagon crash to support the official story, but a truth-seeker's simulation was not used for the WTC collapse. Apparently the scientists who did the Pentagon crash simulation received hate mail from 'conspiracy theorists', who were overly 'emotional' and accused them of being government assets. This was clearly an attempt to paint truth-seekers as unstable and dishonest. There was focus on a supposed internet rumour that said the X-Files team tried to warn people of 9-11 though the Lone Gunmen WTC episode. It is acknowledged on the internet that this show 'predicted' 9-11, but only in response to official claims that the 9-11 scenario had not been envisioned previously, but not that the X-Files team possessed special information. The programme finished with the narrator saying the theories were offensive to those families affected by 9-11 - a logical fallacy called an 'appeal to emotion'. The 9-11 victim's families are themselves asking for an investigation into 9-11, so it appears the BBC used some victims to support it's hit piece whilst ignoring others. [20] Furthermore the 9-11 first responders were made ill by the New York air which they were told was safe to breathe. [21] Many of the emergency service's dogs also suffered fatal illness for the same reasons. The BBC failed to mention this too. Amidst the myriad of attacks upon its credibility, the BBC failed to mention that Loose Change is being revised to filter out mistakes made and concentrate on infallible evidence. Will Guy Smith release a version 2 of his documentary? Will his propagandistic and manipulative tissue of lies be corrected? Will Smith answer any of the questions listed above? Or will what has become for many the Blair Broadcasting Corporation continue to excel in shoddy research, outright factual fallacy and bias emotional manipulation, while taxing the British public for the courtesy of having to put up with it?
they are here as well: destro, agaviator, beachooser at the least
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
I noticed, yes. But at least here they don't have informal approval by a host to do name calling games and bait like they do there. One poster named Yukon in particular has gone to great trouble to dehumanize and ridicule others as 'moonbats'. And he and others stick to this game and use it to avoid or stall discussion of 9-11. Here you all hold the des-aga-beach set accountable and actually get the to discuss the topic. I can live with disagreement as long as others do so in good faith of promoting the talk on critically important topic like this one.
This version of this forum software is the cat's meow too. It just so cool to be able to correct posts, mail internal mail and other things like you can do here. I don't know why I didn't to this sign up first. Glad I'm here now.
And you are wasting your time making irrelevant and spurious posts, just like that one.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell destro, agaviator, beachooser at the least You just read my bozo list, except for Destro..he hasn't yet said anything to me deserving of it yet.. Time is valuable; shills are expendable. [Shills are not about debate and honest disagreement, they are about spurious posts and disruption] When, on ElPee, my Bozo filter got full with the likes of Yukon and his ilk, I knew the place had been completely compromised. Welcome Corn Flake Girl.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell Uh-oh; you're not going to like me. I don't cut BAC any slack. Trust me, he deserves worse. (Ooops, you cited the host doing the name calling - sorry.) I try to keep it contained, however. {:-)) Welcome aboard; I mean that sincerely.
Yeah, well, they haven't gotten their foothold yet...some of these shills are paid shills...others can be hired to join in the disruption. Have you read this?: http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
good faith bump, and welcome to 4
they're not going to get a foothold here. i guarantee it. there's not a 4 poster who can't see what it is. the concensus, so far, is that the opportunity to hone one's debate skills and the entertainment value is welcomed. you have to admit, the witty replies to them is fun. i've done a lot of laughing.
The original "irrelevant and spurious post" was the one speculating that Destro is a "blue collar WTC demolition" type which I replied to.
and the poster Ferret Mike wrote I hate America yet he is willing to - nay - he knows in his heart that his fellow Americans - the salt of the earth blue collar American types at that would mine the WTC and set of demolition charges. Who really hates Americans if that is what they think blue collar American types are capable of? This is the paradox of their nutso thinking - for the WTC buildings to be demolished with explosives you require so many people - including civilians with demolition know how - janitor types, electricians and so on that you pretty much consider everyone in the demolition and construction field a suspect - including the engineers and architects who had to plan out the demolition charge placements by creating computer models and so on. And trust them not to black mail the govt or leak info and so on. So we may expect what? mass suicides and unexplained deaths in these fields soon? Maybe they were all military men and killed over in Iraq - hope they did not see any B grade Hollywood thrillers and created a evidence trail in case they died and it can be mailed to the press or published online. Booga booga!
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
India and China are on good terms with the USA. They both are dependent on the USA right now for their economy to continue expanding and not collapsing. They would be foolish to reveal that the USA is lying about the true causes of the WTC collapses. If they did that the dollar would crash and their huge amount of reserves held in dollars would then also be worthless. With the dollar being the world's reserve currency it makes it hard for any nation that relies on trade with the USA and has huge amounts of their reserves in dollars to upset the status quo. However not all structural engineers have agreed with the USA government's theory of the collapse, just most of them. The ones that have disagreed tend to be those that are retired and thus it will not affect them financially to disagree.
God is always good! I would love to read who they are and what they have to say.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Do you think Counterpunch/Cockburns are aliens?
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
"Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see. – Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp Hayden: "By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02] Yet, your side's demolition *expert*, Danny Jowenko, who said the WTC7 was a demolition (after being shown selected video by conspiracists) is on record stating that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were clearly NOT controlled demolitions. This is completely false, Ricky. The core did not bear the ENTIRE vertical load of the building. In fact, the outer wall columns carried a substantial portion of that load as pointed out in source after source. Here are a few: *********** http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/elaboration.htm "Cad Digest ... snip ... G Charles Clifton, HERA Structural Engineer, December 13, 2001 ... snip ... Structural Load Distribution Before Impact. Overview The section of [1] entitles “Details of the buildings “ and presented on pages 2-5 therein provide an overview of the structural system used. In summary, this comprised: * A closely spaced perimeter frame around the four external walls, providing lateral strength and stiffness and also providing vertical support to its tributary area of the floor slab. * A cluster of compression load carrying columns in the core, forming the principal gravity load carrying system and supporting the vertical load from half the open plan floor system plus all the structural systems, services and components within the core. * A light-weight, long spanning floor system running from perimeter frame to outside edge of core. This floor system comprised bar joists as girders (primary beams) supporting secondary joists which carried a 100 mm thick light-weight concrete slab on profiled steel deck. The presence of secondary joists connected into the bar joists and made integral with a composite slab (see Fig 6 from [1]) made for a light, stiff floor system with good capacity for two-way action under severe fire conditions. ************ From page XXXVI of http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf " The exterior walls were composed of box-shaped welded steel columns and spandrel beams comprised of a steel plate. Each building face consisted of 59 columns spaced at 3 ft 4 in. on center. As part of the framed-tube system, the exterior columns were designed structurally such that they resisted the total lateral loads and about 50 percent of gravity loads." *************** The problem is that it was severely damaged, exposed to temperatures that would significantly impact the strength, lost buckling resistance as the floors sagged and then was damaged as the sagging floors pulled on the outer columns. And then once that floor failed, the loads from impact were far in excess of any engineered capability. You never did get around to running that simple calculation I suggested, did you, Ricky.
Thank you for letting me know what your bozo count was though. I have no way of knowing unless you spill the beans like you did above. If your count had been below 40 you would have screamed and called me a liar. 40+ is a heck of a bozo count.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Tell me, christine ... Do you honestly think a poster who is completely wrong about the load distribution in the towers understands "fundamental"?
Do a google on "context", you'll be amazed.
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
So your extensive *experience* tells you that tall steel framed buildings are rigid enough to "tip over"? ROTFLOL!
Remember what you were told about name calling and your other kookery.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Do you honestly think a poster who is completely wrong about the load distribution in the towers understands "fundamental"? you shouldn't whine to mom when someone scores a point on you this way. this isn't LP. good thing too, or you would have been booted for being a kook.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Careful, them bedwetters are a-scared of real-life kooks. You know, the ones out on public golf courses wearing two year old sweaters...shameful!
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
Welcome to 4UM. I like your nick, though if it is based on th song you should have chosen 'Raisin Girl.' In the song, the 'Corn Flake Girl' is the conservative giving her friends who thought she was multi-cultural and liberal, "the yo heave ho." But, I'm sure you knew that if you know Tori Amos' work and knew what you were doing. Bet you could get banned from Free Republic merely for liking "spacey Tori the lib" too. ;-D Tori Amos - Cornflake Girl - Soundstage
if the building is rigid enough to stand up, then it is rigid enough to tip over. it doesn't take any special experience to figure that out - it just takes a functioning brain.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
do you have the corn flake dance video still around? i couldn't find it.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
do you do the corn flake dance to psych yourself up for your role as an internet flake?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Several Corn Flake dances:
FALSE. Why do you find it necessary to lie about what NIST states? 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."
ROTFLOL!
I agree with you. That is precisely the point I've been trying to make to these folks since day one. They simply won't listen.
your snippet in 329 uses the word 'probably' 3 times. this makes it useless to us. we are truth-seekers.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
ROTFLOL!
do you have a source documenting that you are a qualified airline pilot? and I don't want to see the word 'probably' in that source. and you still haven't answered my question in 332.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
BeAChooser, it seems that some parts of the 9/11 alternate conspiracy theory (technically I am in the conspiracy camp - I just don't accept the demolition theory) that seems to have died on the vine is the theory that the airplanes were drones and the passengers were diverted to other locals. The only surviving part of the drone theory is for those that hold that the Pentagon was hit by a drone which is an improvement since they once said all 4 planes were drones. So the last remaining conspiracy theory is the demolition in conjunction with the planes crashing. Kind of funny but even in that group there is a sub group that is thought of as being way out there - drones - come on that's crazy talk.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
The president does not
agree with you BAC - see 2'nd photo down taken of Bush at his ranch in TX.
well BAC! that t-shirt does not say 'probably'. and the allies did bomb
Dresden in WW2. What better authority do you need than the president - 911 was
an inside job. if you criticize MY PRESIDENT I'm going to call Homeland
Security.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Perhaps because this is false? Perhaps for the same reason there wasn't testimony from Deputy Chief Peter Hayden saying that "Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse"? Just to clarify things, Mr Rodruigez was not a EYEwitness to any underground explosions. Perhaps because he never said "pull the building"? Perhaps because 99.99% of demolitions experts would have laughed at the broadcast if they had? Perhaps because structural engineers convinced the BBC that compressed air caused by the collapse was blowing out windows? Consider yourself lucky. If they had based the percentage of coverage on a quota representative of the actual ratio of experts who believe the "official" scenario to those who don't, there wouldn't have been a single 9/11 truth member included. Guy Smith was in fact overly (and foolishly) generous. Perhaps because some aspects of the 9/11 truth movement's accusation are? They are also hurtful to the thousands of people from all walks of life that are also indirectly accused of having participated in or helped cover up a mega mass murder. Gee ... aren't those all theories that are frequently espoused here at FD4UM? Perhaps because conspiracists didn't give ANY air time for opposing views in such gems as "Loose Change", "9/11 Mysteries" and assorted other *films* promoted widely by conspiracists. In fact, would I be wrong if I guessed that far more people have seen Loose Change than Guy Smith's production? I bet not. Actually, there are far more effective ways to make Mr Avery look dishonest. I'd say he got off lucky. Perhaps it was just payback for the way skeptics about the 9/11 *Truth* Movement have been painted by the conspiracists in their productions. ROTFLOL! I'd say based on what I've seen and read from them, that description pretty much captures their (and their followers) attitude. Perhaps because Jones and Ryan refused to be interviewed when told that they would be introduced as (1) a expert in sub-atomic particles and cold fusion and (2) an expert in water treatment? Just guessing ... That's true, isn't it? Just curious ... what simulation is this?
Comments (338 - 467) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAnd instead of enjoying your retirement in the lap of luxury, you're spending your spare hours posting on this forum....
#298. To: RickyJ, Skydrifter, *9-11* (#285)
#299. To: Corn Flake Girl (#289)
#300. To: christine (#299)
#301. To: RickyJ, Critter Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#260)
#302. To: Corn Flake Girl (#300)
has operatives whose game is to degrade the discussion on 9-11 into high school grade name calling or aggressive campaigns to advance the Bush crime syndicate's desire to degrade the truth as being mere conspiracy.
#303. To: angle (#302)
#304. To: angle (#302)
#305. To: Destro, agaviator, all (#297)
And instead of enjoying your retirement in the lap of luxury, you're spending your spare hours posting on this forum....
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#306. To: angle, corn flake girl (#302)
(Edited)
they are here as well:
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#307. To: Corn Flake Girl (#303)
#308. To: Corn Flake Girl (#303)
I can live with disagreement
#309. To: Corn Flake Girl (#303)
I can live with disagreement as long as others do so in good faith of promoting the talk on critically important topic like this one.
#310. To: angle (#308)
#311. To: IndieTX, Destro (#305)
Wasting your time making irrelevant and spurious posts,
Bozo List: (1)[D]angle, (2) Kamala
#312. To: AGAviator, IndieTX, Ferret Mike (#311)
#313. To: Destro (#286)
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?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#314. To: RickyJ (#313)
The ones that have disagreed tend to be those that are retired and thus it will not affect them financially to disagree.
#315. To: Destro (#314)
#316. To: RickyJ, ALL (#260)
WTC 7 didn't bow
If WTC 7 was a demolition, it is only reasonable to conclude that the twin towers were too.
The core's primary function was to bear the entire vertical load of the building
Of course it was over engineered to handle at least twice the weight of the towers
#317. To: BeAChooser (#316)
(Edited)
#318. To: christine, RickyJ, ALL (#265)
Notice the concrete is for the most part intact. It did not turn to dust like the WTC towers concrete did.
so fundamental
#319. To: BeAChooser (#318)
#320. To: Kamala, ALL (#268)
WTC 7 was 5 times higher than wide. A "normal" failure would have been that it would have tipped over
#321. To: BeAChooser (#320)
ROTFLOL!
#322. To: BeAChooser (#318)
Tell me, christine ...
#323. To: Minerva (#321)
(Edited)
#324. To: Corn Flake Girl (#304)
Captain Paul Watson
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
#325. To: BeAChooser (#320)
So your extensive *experience* tells you that tall steel framed buildings are rigid enough to "tip over"?
#326. To: Ferret Mike (#324)
#327. To: BeAChooser (#320)
#328. To: Morgana le Fay (#326)
Captain Paul Watson
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
#329. To: Kamala, ALL (#269)
NIST states that the majority of the damage and heat was seen at that impact holes
#330. To: RickyJ, ALL (#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
#331. To: Destro, RickyJ, ALL (#286)
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.
#332. To: BeAChooser (#329)
probably
#333. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#291)
Notice that I'm the only qualified airline pilot illustrating the undeniable aviation fraud, involved in 9-11.
#334. To: BeAChooser (#333)
qualified airline pilot
#335. To: BeAChooser, RickyJ, SKYDRIFTER (#331)
(Edited)
#336. To: BeAChooser (#331)
I agree with you
#337. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#301)
1) ... snip ... the entirety of the towers, including the concrete support structures, were pulverized into small pieces and dust.
4) ... snip ... Why was the testimony of Craig Bartmer, a former NYPD official who states he heard bombs tear down Building 7 as it collapsed , omitted from the final edit? ... snip ... Why was there no effort made to include the testimony of William Rodruigez, who was a witness to underground explosions in the basement levels?
5) Why during brief coverage of the Building 7 issue were the words of Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex who told a September 2002 PBS documentary that he and firefighting chiefs decided to "pull" the building, not even mentioned?
6) Why was coverage of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7 narrowed into a mere debunking of the "squib" issue and testimony from the dozens at the scene who both saw and heard explosions completely omitted. In debunking the squib issue, why did the documentary fail to point out the fact that such emissions could be seen exiting the towers many floors below the collapse point?
1) If the documentary was intended to be a balanced piece, why were only three individuals who represented the 9/11 truth movement included in the final edit compared to at least thirteen individuals who advocated the official story or the incompetence whitewash? ... Does Guy Smith consider a more than four to one ratio of debunkers to 9/11 skeptics a balanced appraisal?
2) How can Guy Smith justify using the strong implication on numerous occasions throughout the documentary that questioning the official story of 9/11 is insulting and hurtful to the victims?
4) Why did producer Guy Smith decide to devote an inordinate amount of time to theories that are not even embraced by the majority of the 9/11 truth movement, such as the Jewish conspiracy angle, the C-130 Pentagon angle and the Shanksville "no plane" angle?
5) Why were 9/11 skeptics afforded only brief, insubstantial and fleeting air time whereas debunkers were given the chance to speak uninterrupted at length? Why were the statements of debunkers subsequently supported in the narrative with documentation yet the statements of 9/11 skeptics were not, even though we know the producer was presented with such documentation.
6) Why was Dylan Avery filmed listening to the interviewer's question about the coroner's statements while looking nervous? This was a blatant attempt to portray Avery as dishonest
7) Why were the debunkers referred to in sympathetic and sober terms whereas the personalities of the 9/11 skeptics were attacked?
8) ... snip ... When Fetzer and Avery were shown talking to the camera, they were overwhelmingly depicted as single-minded and emotional, with a forcible attitude of 'you're either with us or against us'
9) Why were scientists who represented the debunkers interviewed and yet scientists who represented the 9/11 skeptics, such as Professor Steven Jones or Kevin Ryan, omitted from the documentary?
Before Avery began talking, they called him a college 'dropout', and said he made his money selling Loose Change.
The BBC allowed scientists to do a 3D simulation of the Pentagon crash to support the official story, but a truth-seeker's simulation was not used for the WTC collapse.
.
.
.