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: 36795
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 (1-315) not displayed.
.
.
.
#316. To: RickyJ, ALL (#260)
"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?
How does one go about correcting posts?
Nothing like exposing yourself to only one side of a topic to get at the truth. ROTFLOL!
I would press the 'edit' button if I were you. But what I want to know is ... are you going to avoid my questions in 332 &334?
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
MY PRESIDENT says that 911 was an inside job. and BAC says it wasn't. that is enough to make me mad. especially since BAC won't debate the facts with me.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
>ROTFLOL! Well it is a mystery. I could be like you, and decide to accept most structural engineers word that the towers were brought down just like the government theory says. But I would rather think for myself and come to my own conclusions based on the facts and evidence that is available in the public domain than to accept anyone's word as gold especially since much of the government's theory seems to directly contradict what I know about physics. Not all structural engineers agree that the towers did not come down with explosives, so it could very well be that most structural engineers either do not have a clue to the real reason they came down, or do not want to admit the real reason they think they came down for fear of hurting their career options. In either of these two cases they would more and likely go with the government's theory to not upset their employment opportunities in the future with projects relying wholly or in part on government financing. The other structural engineers who sincerely believe the government's theory are the ones I am most concerned about. I wouldn't want to ever go in any building those people design.
God is always good! this is what really happened on sept 11 2001. Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I would imagine that banks lend money to real estate developers for projects who hire design consultants to design buildings. and some of those consultants are the structural engineers. What if an engineer publicly associates himself with the truth? Magically the developers don't hire him any more.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Which explains why so many have leaped into bozo mode. ROTFLOL! Well then, christine, you'll love this ... http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/11/video-south-park-spoofs-truther-morons/
Curious. And how many would that be Ricky? One? ROTFLOL!
Oh ... is that right, Summa Cum Laude? ROTFLOL!
ROTFLOL!
I'm so relieved that you haven't put me on bozo. I was in a depression. thanks.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Red, please add width = 731 before the final > when posting large images. Otherwise the thread text margins get messed up.
And where would that edit button be? Perhaps you should use it to correct the width of the images you posted?
True. There is one. ROTFLOL! You probably do every day. Unless you are a hermit.
Ok, I am willing to admit I was wrong about this. But the core could have supported the entire vertical load since it was over engineered. It wasn't designed to support the lateral load, but it would only have to support the lateral load if the perimeter columns were gone, and only a relatively small number were severed by the planes so that shouldn't have been a factor in the collapse.
God is always good! You probably do every day. Unless you are a hermit. I said the ones who sincerely believe the government's theory of the collapse of the WTC towers. There can't be too many that sincerely believe that story, at least I hope not.
God is always good! If you think the equation to prove the WTC buildings collapsed according to the government's theory can be done with a simple equation then why the heck haven't you or one of those structural engineers that agrees with the government's ludicrous theory done it yet?
God is always good! >True. There is one. ROTFLOL! The other structural engineers who sincerely believe the government's theory are the ones I am most concerned about. I wouldn't want to ever go in any building those people design. >You probably do every day. Unless you are a hermit. The structural engineers that believe the government's theory must not know that concrete doesn't turn to dust and sever massive box columns just because it falls the height one floor's distance in the WTC towers. If they don't know that then it is about time to start educating these dunces about the facts of the matter. 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!
Comments (357 - 467) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 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.
#338. To: Corn Flake Girl, ALL (#304)
It just so cool to be able to correct posts
#339. To: IndieTX, ALL (#306)
destro, agaviator, beachooser at the least
You just read my bozo list
#340. To: BeAChooser (#338)
How does one go about correcting posts?
#341. To: BeAChooser (#338)
#342. To: BeAChooser (#330)
(Edited)
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
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#343. To: BeAChooser (#339)
#344. To: RickyJ (#342)
#345. To: christine, ALL (#310)
the concensus, so far, is that the opportunity to hone one's debate skills
and the entertainment value is welcomed.
#346. To: RickyJ, Destro, ALL (#313)
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.
#347. To: Red Jones, ALL (#325)
if the building is rigid enough to stand up, then it is rigid enough to tip over.
#348. To: Red Jones, ALL (#332)
we are truth-seekers.
#349. To: BeAChooser (#347)
#350. To: Red Jones, ALL (#336)
#351. To: Red Jones (#340)
I would press the 'edit' button if I were you.
#352. To: RickyJ, ALL (#342)
Not all structural engineers agree that the towers did not come down with explosives,
The other structural engineers who sincerely believe the government's theory are the ones I am most concerned about. I wouldn't want to ever go in any building those people design.
#353. To: BeAChooser (#316)
the exterior columns were designed structurally such that they resisted the total lateral loads and about 50 percent of gravity loads."
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#354. To: BeAChooser (#352)
The other structural engineers who sincerely believe the government's theory are the ones I am most concerned about. I wouldn't want to ever go in any building those people design.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#355. To: BeAChooser (#316)
You never did get around to running that simple calculation I suggested, did you, Ricky.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#356. To: BeAChooser (#352)
(Edited)
Not all structural engineers agree that the towers did not come down with explosives,
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
.
.
.