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: 37261
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 (1-331) not displayed.
.
.
.
#332. To: BeAChooser (#329)
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! You are reduced to calling me a liar because your handler 911 debunking sites
either don't have all the information, or they are hoping that no one reveals
all the contradictions in the report. One more time, you must READ not
ccp. All information isn't on the internet. Books and papers can be bought or
sent for in the mail also. There are no lies or falsehoods. When I quote
the NIST report, its the final draft release in the late summer of 2005 not a
2003 NYT article. NIST states that the majority of damage and heating was
directly in the impact area. The problem with the NIST report is that it is
full of contradictions that have no real scientific forensic proof. NIST
states that majority airframe that impacted the WTC 2 was crushed in 0.2
seconds by floor slabs and the 100,000 psi outer perimeter columns. The NIST
final report refers to these sagging floors as hanging floors along the east
face of the WTC 2. There are multiple photos that show the hanging floors
before collapse and right after impact. There appears to be no difference
between the two photos in the elapsed timeframe. NIST concluded that while
the impacts MAY have destroyed and removed the ceiling tiles from the direct
impact area the vibration played no role in shaking off the 2.2-2.5 inches of
upgraded SFRM, and NIST left this out of its final draft. Why don't you
ccp and discuss NISTs shotgun experiment on how SFRM can be widely dislodged?
Or how it was quickly inserted at the very end in a 12 page add on. Just a
layman looking at that experiment would be questioning how that would
translate to the impacts. NIST treated this investigation like a research
project. All physical evidence and experimentation was disgarded for computer
modeling. Computer simulations are not proof or evidence of anything. The
NIST report is a cross between voodoo/witch doctor science and the
Roadrunner/Wiley Coyote cartoons.
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
The corn flake who posts here?
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Red, I'm going to edit out your huge jpgs in post #336. It's thrown off the whole thread.
I didn't say equation. I said calculation. But now that you mention it ... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf ROTFLOL!
SKY: Notice that I'm the only qualified airline pilot illustrating the undeniable aviation fraud, involved in 9-11. BAC: ROTFLOL! I'm Captain qualified on the B-727, B-737, B-747, B-757, B-767 & DC-10. That doesn't meet the test of "qualified?" Or, if there is another such qualified pilot speaking out - loudly - on the corruption of 9-11; please give me a contact.
I apologize. In keeping with my new approach to dealing with you folks, I shouldn't express an opinion that you deliberately posted false information. I must give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you just didn't read the NIST reports but read what you posted at some conspiracy website. Perhaps a pretty girl caught your eye at a critical moment while you were reading it. But regardless, what you posted was not true. But the impact area extends through the building to the other side. You wished to give folks the impression it is only where the entrance hole was located. Actually, it doesn't say that. I says that the structural elements shredded the plane ... and at the same time, the plane did great damage to the structural elements ... indeed, severing many columns in the core area well away from the entrance hole. I challenge you to post a photo that shows sagging floors right after impact. I bet you can't do it. You are again stating misinformation. By all means, post the exact statements and URL the reports where you get this claim. Here's what it says in the final report: "aircraft debris resulted in substantial damage to the nonstructural building contents (partitions and workstations) and also in dislodging of fireproofing." "The extent of dislodged fireproofing was estimated by considering fireproofing damage only to structural components in the direct pat of debris." I suggest you take a closer look at the results of Project 2 of NCSTAR1-6: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf You will find it says this: "insulation damage estimates were limited to areas subject to direct debris impact. Other sources of floor and insulation damage from the aircraft impact and fires (e.g., insulation damage due to shock and subsequent vibrations as a result of aircraft impact or concrete slab cracking and spalling as a result of thermal effects) were not included in the floor models." That doesn't say what you claimed they said about vibrations. And neither does this, from the same final report: "since NIST was not able to establish robust criteria to predict the extent of vibration-induced dislodgement, insulation dislodged by inertial effects other than that dislodged by direct debris impact was ignored and not included in the analyses." And neither does this: "The insulation damage estimates were conservative as they ignored possibly damaged and dislodged insulation in a much larger region that was not in the direct path of the debris but was subject to strong vibrations during and after the aircraft impact. A robust criteria to generate a coherent pattern of vibration-induced dislodging could not be established due to (1) the numerical noise inherent in the acceleration time-histories on structural components obtained from the aircraft impact analyses, and (2) lack of data on the strength of insulation materials under such a high rate of loading with sharp peaks in a very short duration. However, there were indications that insulation damage occurred over a larger region than that estimated. Photographic evidence showed insulation dislodged from exterior columns not directly impacted by debris (NIST NCSTAR 1-3C). The towers underwent a period of strong impact loading fro about .6 to .7 s. Further, video analysis showed that WTC 2 vibrated for over 4 minutes after aircraft impact with amplitudes in excess of 20 inches at the roof top (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A). First person interviews of building occupants indicated that building vibrations due to aircraft impact were strong enough to dislodge ceiling tiles and collapse walls throughout the height of both WTC towers and to cause nearly all elevators to stop functioning (NIST NCSTAR 1-7)." So it looks like you are completely wrong in claiming that NIST said " vibration played no role in shaking off" insulation. Did you just fail to see the comments above? Did you get your claim from some other source? I wouldn't want to think you deliberately lied to us, Mark. Really, I wouldn't want to think that.
It's such a shame they are not allowing you to pilot them any longer. Or has your situation changed for the better?
I'm qualified, or I'm not. {Yeah, I'm qualified - though unemployed.)
Well dang, then. I flew a Cessna 150 for an hour or so. Was so much fun. The instructor said I was a natural. Course that was in the air on a nice day and I sure didn't land the beast.
Ha, ha! Again, attacks, name calling, etc.. I thought you were not going to dissect posts word by word, or line by line or paragraph by paragraph. You love playing with word and sentence semantics. Old, tired tricks are hard to break. 4UM is my home field. Its my rules, my ball, my game. If you don't like it, don't reply. You will get nothing as far as sources. Zero. If you think I'm going to help point you in any direction you are mistaken. In the NIST, there are so many sections, chapters, add ons, project reports, appendixes and supplementary documents, it a giant jigsaw mess. The search engine dosen't even work well. The longer you carry this out, the more exposure the NIST gets as nothing more than a computer simulated research project. Out of all that you ccp'ed, all one needs to read is this "NIST was not able to establish robust criteria to predict the extent of vibration-induced dislodgement". Which means there was no proof that vibration "widely dislodged" the SFRM. In its severe computer simulations, NIST removes all the SFRM from the impact hole through the debris path. Even though it has no evidence of how the SFRM could be widely dislodged by shearing or any other means in the debris path. No proof, no evidence, the hypothesis doesn't exist. NIST tried to prove that shearing from debris may remove the SFRM. The shotgun/ wooden box test NIST ran proves nothing and actually proves how adhesive and tough the spray on fireproofing was. Even without SFRM, the time the office fires burned in the area of limited outer girder bowing, wasn't long enough to raise steel temperatures. The limited heating and suspected loss of SFRM to the perimeter columns played no role in the collapse. All steel tested from the fire zones bare this out. Aircraft impact areas and debris path are totally different. NIST could only see around 3 meters into the towers. Any computer modeling of a debris path is complete speculation. NIST had problems with the computer simulations from the very start. No matter what airliner impact case NIST plugged into the model A,B,C or D, no simulation produced the observable events of impact and the debris path. That means ALL cases were incorrect. This also means the modeling of the workstations and the inner area of the towers were wrong, and the impact simulation were also incorrect. NIST still chose to go with the most severe case because the others, even though no more or less correct, resulted in collapse, while the others did not. Another take I have on the NIST is that, just in case, the real truth about 911 is revealed, NIST has its back covered. There is enough truth in the report, but the pre determined conclusions were politically influenced. So, all NIST would have to claim is, we had the data, but we couldn't "connect the dots". Sounds familiar. The government fairytale is in serious trouble. Over 80% believe there is a cover up. You and others are losing, and losing badly.
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
I agree. There's always the dumb ones and the brainwashed ones. The others are complicit knowingly or unwittingly. Begininng with BushBakerSaudiCheneyInc, they deserve a traitor's consequence, at the least.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
BAC is dependent upon the spam-attack. The troll is hungry - and desperate. He's poisoning the forum, as when any researcher - of any caliber - comes here, they see vitriolic controversy and don't take anything on the forum seriously. If a professional researcher comes here, their editor shoots down the source. That being said, if I were Christine, I'd ban BAC and erase related postings - making him the proverbial un-person.
hehehe I had my run ins with YouCon. A bunch of us have. I still go there once in a while to ruffle some feathers. :)
Didn't I already prove this to be a bogus claim at LP? You showed us pictures claiming to show sagging floors. If they show sagging floors, then the floors have to be disconnected from the perimeter columns. If they are disconnected from the perimeter columns then they cannot exert any inward force on those columns. So which is the lie chooser? That the pictures show sagging floors, or that sagging floors pulled in the columns?
BeAChooser? i don't see him. ;) (when it gets to the point where no one here wants to feed him, he'll have to go elsewhere or starve)
I can't either. I don't know who you're talking about. :) [Some have already "banned" him Skydrifter. When he gets tired of talking to himself, he'll move along. He's admitted to over 40 bozos.]
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell
Comments (373 - 467) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestprobably
#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]
#357. To: BeAChooser, Skydrifter, Angle, Critter, Corn Flake Girl, Diana, Robin, BTP Holdings, All, *9-11* (#329)
#358. To: Ferret Mike (#328)
Several Corn Flake dances:
#359. To: Red Jones (#336)
#360. To: RickyJ, ALL (#355)
If you think the equation to prove the WTC buildings collapsed according to the government's theory can be done with a simple equation
#361. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#333)
#362. To: Kamala, Skydrifter, Angle, Critter, Corn Flake Girl, Diana, Robin, BTP Holdings, All (#357)
You are reduced to calling me a liar
NIST states that the majority of damage and heating was directly in the impact area.
NIST states that majority airframe that impacted the WTC 2 was crushed in 0.2 seconds by floor slabs and the 100,000 psi outer perimeter columns.
The NIST final report refers to these sagging floors as hanging floors along the east face of the WTC 2. There are multiple photos that show the hanging floors before collapse and right after impact. There appears to be no difference between the two photos in the elapsed timeframe.
NIST concluded that while the impacts MAY have destroyed and removed the ceiling tiles from the direct impact area the vibration played no role in shaking off the 2.2-2.5 inches of upgraded SFRM, and NIST left this out of its final draft.
#363. To: SKYDRIFTER (#361)
I'm Captain qualified on the B-727, B-737, B-747, B-757, B-767 & DC-10.
#364. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#363)
#365. To: SKYDRIFTER (#361)
I'm Captain qualified on the B-727, B-737, B-747, B-757, B-767 & DC-10.
#366. To: BeAChooser, Intotheabyss, Corn Flake Girl, Tom007, Jethro Tull, Robin, Diana, RickyJ, Skydrifter, Christine, Angle, All, *9-11* (#362)
#367. To: Kamala (#366)
The government fairytale is in serious trouble. Over 80% believe there is a cover up. You and others are losing, and losing badly.
#368. To: Kamala, Critter, Scrapper2, Christine, Aristeides, Honway, Robin, Diana, All (#366)
#369. To: Corn Flake Girl (#303)
One poster named Yukon
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#370. To: BeAChooser (#316)
damaged as the sagging floors pulled on the outer columns.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#371. To: SKYDRIFTER (#368)
#372. To: christine, skydrifter (#371)
BeAChooser? i don't see him. ;)
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
.
.
.