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: 36540
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 (1-383) not displayed.
.
.
.
#384. To: BeAChooser (#382)
Why would you bring up Madrid? One steel-framed building burned for 18 hours and never fell. Then another steel-framed building burned all day, and as you say burned hotter than WTC1 WTC2 or WTC7. fell. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html Before examining the partial collapse of the Windsor building more closely, we note that steel-framed and steel-reinforced-concrete-framed structures behave very differently in fires. The observation that the Windsor Building is the only skyscraper to have suffered even a partial collapse as a result of fire suggests that the use of steel-reinforced-concrete framing was responsible. A closer look at the incident shows reality to be more complex. The portion of the building that collapsed consisted of the outer portions of floor slabs and perimeter walls throughout the upper third of the building (the 21st through 32nd floors). The outer walls consisted of steel box columns arranged on 1.8 meter centers and connected by narrow spandrel plates. The columns had square cross-sections 120mm on a side, and were fabricated of C-sections 7mm thick welded together. (these were a fraction of the dimensions, and spaced about twice as far apart as the perimeter columns of the Twin Towers.) The perimeter columns lacked fireproofing throughout the upper third of the Windsor building. 4 The Windsor Building fire engulfed the upper third of the building, but also spread downward as low as the fourth floor. A report by two fire safety experts in Japan highlighted three causes for the very wide extent of the fire: Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush quite tame idea, unless of course it's a public spectacle in Washington Square with a proclaimed National Holiday...we don't have any in March.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Well said. 80 something floors being "pancaked" would add much more time than 1 sec. to the time in which the roof goes to the ground. And when you watch building 7 falling with the entire facade falling together as one uniform piece it becomes obvious to anyone with and IQ in the 3 digits.
Why? Because so many are filtering you.
ROTFLOL! Being isolated over here at FD4UM, I guess you never heard that the structure had a reinforced concrete frame from the 17th floor on down and the steel framed portions of it (above the 17th floor) all collapsed within about 4 hours of the fire reaching those portions. ******** http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095 The Madrid Windsor Tower Building Fire, 14-15 February 2005 * Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. * Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse. * The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors. * The building was in the process of refurbishment and fireproofing to modern standards when the fire occurred; some fireproofing was being provided on the steel perimeter columns. * NIST's interim report on the World Trade Center disaster recommends the inclusion of 'strong points' within the building frame design - the Madrid Windsor Building's strong points were its two concrete 'technical' floors and the concrete core system enabling the building to survive complete burnout. * This case study is an example of the excellent performance of a concrete frame designed using traditional methods and subjected to an intense fire. It also highlights the risks when active fire protection measures fail or are not included in steel frame construction. ... snip ... The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor. ... snip ... Because of the height of the structure and the extent of the blaze, firefighters could only mount a containment operation and ensure that neighbouring buildings were protected. The fire eventually finished 26 hours later, leaving a complete burn-out above the fifth floor. The steel-glass façade was completely destroyed, exposing the concrete perimeter columns. The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor. ************* You won't find the truth on a foundation of misinformation, robin.
Try reading the entire post. I mentioned both buildings and linked to good info on both.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Try understanding that the Windsor Tower was not just a steel framed building. Try understanding that ALL the portions of the Windsor Tower that relied on a steel frame did in fact collapse. Try understanding that the Windsor Tower fire was not started by jet fuel (unlike the WTC), the building wasn't damaged by an impact (unlike the WTC), the fires were fought by firemen (unlike the WTC) and what burned was just office contents (same stuff found in the WTC towers). You will never find the truth on a foundation of misinformation.
Read the links I posted, it explains the difference between the structures. YET, that building only had a partial collapse, and it took ALL DAY.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush You are suggesting I read a conspiracy website to get the facts about the Windsor Towers? My experience is that is not a good idea because you can't find the truth starting with misinformation. ROTFLOL! You can't change the facts, robin. The structure was mostly reinforced concrete and ALL the portions that relied on a steel frame collapsed. Those are veriable facts. The Windsor Tower is hard evidence against the conspiracy crowd. The fires were hotter than is claimed the WTC could possibly have been. The steel collapsed. Something the conspiracy crowd claims is not possible in building fires. The steel collapsed as rapidly as the fire protection coatings allowed.
Yeah, you are right there chooser, it is hard evidence that the government's story is a lie.
God is always good! No, that's what you call a lie chooser. That's about all you seem to do here is lie. You have zero credibility around here.
God is always good! You traiterous piece of shit - you think you're entitled to anything less than max contempt? Or do you pretend to be a "gentleman" traitor?? Deal with it! I hold to my promise of reporting you as a traitor, as soon as the Bush Cabal loses its clout! (Add Goldi, of course!)
Again, lots of ccp face summary paragraphs, with a few nuggets of truth and deception. When NIST uses the words, "could", "predicted debris impact", "representations", "estimations of areas", "estimates", "considered damage" and "debris field calculated from aircraft impact analyses", "partial validation" and "assumed" are nothing more than computer simulated data with no scientific evidence of any kind. The NIST report is a blur between reality and computer modeling. Again, NIST has no proof or evidence or scientific experimentation, of how aircraft debris and office furnishings, convert from shotgun blasts, according to NISTs experiment, and shear and scrape all the SFRM off of trusses, steel decks, steel columns etc.., in all directions and certain angles over 3-5 floors of office space, or in its "computer boundaries" of 9 floors. It would or may take 100,000 shotgun blasts. One would think that NIST would have done EXTENSIVE testing proving this hypothesis. NOPE. At the very end of the report, at the LAST minute, NIST inserted a 12 page addendum. In it, the report contained a test that consisted of firing a SHOTGUN, at a wooden box, with a piece steel sprayed with SFRM. 15 shots were preformed at a FLAT piece of steel, not a steel column or a coupling with all its shape difference, or not a steel deck. NIST also shotgun tested a truss sprayed with fireproofing. NIST also had to widely vary the shotgun degree angle to get the removal of SFRM. If the angle wasn't just right, the fireproofing did not come off, or it was a very, very small limited area. There is no energy for this according to MIT engineers. Calculations done have the airliners basically expending ALMOST all their energy on impact and crushing themselves on the girders and floors slabs. There was no energy left to remove all the SFRM from 1,000's and 1,000's of square feet of the towers. As the aircraft debris mixed with the office workstations the psi force would considerably diminish. The most force would have been in the immediate impact hole area. Here is another question for everyone reading this thread. If all this aircraft and office debris sheared, scraped and widely dislodged all the SFRM with all this psi force, why wouldn't the impacts clear out all the office workstations and furnishings? If all this debris is cleared out, then what is burning? Where is all the heating? What's burning to raise temperatures according to their severe computer models? Not jet fuel, since it was burned off in minutes. NIST states that the towers were fuel poor and ventilation limited. Where is all the thermal heating of the steel coming from? NIST states that the fires had around 20 minutes of fuel as the transient fires moved, but burned for around 40 minutes near the bowing areas. What's burning? Modern office furnishings are fire rated, so they are mostly fire retardant. NIST states the core had no combustibles to burn and no fuel loading, so what raised core temps in their severe computer models? NIST severe computer modeling of interior "damage" consisted of, if a workstation had an estimated 5% damage, then the WHOLE workstation and SFRM was REMOVED and considered 100% destroyed. ANY damage at all was 100% in its severe comuter simulations. If a chair was TIPPED over, it was 100% damage. In NISTs workstation burn tests, NIST ran twelve physical tests and only revealed one. In the one test, NIST DOUBLED the known fuel in the area and OVER ventilates the fires to get air/gas temps of around 1800. This then is what NIST plugs into it severe simulation. This isn't science, its witchcraft. NIST could only see 3 meters in, NIST could only calculate observable EXTERIOR impact hole damage of the towers. Berkley engineers got access to the steel from the impact zones and stated the steel preformed great and the towers preformed as designed. NIST could never duplicate the INTERIOR debris path or workstation layouts. No matter if NIST ran its less, moderate base or more severe computer simulations, NIST could NEVER duplicate the aircraft debris path or the complex interior layout of the towers. WTC 1 had landing gear eject out from opposite the impact hole and the WTC 2 had a engine, landing gear and some fuselage exit opposite the impact hole. NONE of the computer simulation re-enacted those events. This means ALL computer impact debris path cases were incorrect, or no more correct than the others. NIST chose the most severe because it caused a simulated collapse, while the others did not. In the WTC 2's case, that would mean that the airliner did much LESS damage and MAY have missed the core completely. The airliner also didn't completely crush itself on impact and missed many obstructions. NIST couldn't have this outcome, NIST needed the most severe case modeling to provide for the most destruction possible. In NISTs computer simulation, to get the towers to collapse, NIST had to use a more severe model that had the airliner impacts and debris path doing MASSIVE damage, even though NIST has no evidence. NIST then removes ALL the fireproofing from girders and trusses, DOUBLES the time of the fire in the bowing area from 40 to 90 minutes, DOUBLES the known damage area from 5 to 9 floors, increases the sagging trusses to 42 INCHES, models the towers WITHOUT the hat truss, and then DISCONNECTS the floor systems from the perimeter columns. Then the towers are "poised" for "progressive collapse". NIST has a some SPECIAL cases of mix-n-match tinkertoy simulations that I may reveal later if you continue. All in due time, maybe. Hee, hee. NIST quote, "Not all the observables were perfectly matched by the simulations due to the uncertainties in exact impact conditions, the imperfect knowledge of the interior tower contents, the chaotic behavior of the aircraft breakup and subsequent debris motion, and the limitations of the models". Who here at 4UM is willing to trust and believe anything from a research project that admits this? The closer and closer NIST gets the towers "poised" for collapse, the more vague the whole cartoon project gets. NIST had computer modeled the aircraft down to the seats and number of fan blades, but modeled the east face of WTC 2 and the south face of WTC 1 with a low, resolution, coarse simulation. The very areas where NIST claims the bowing and sagging and collapse started. Computer simulations and adjustments are not scientific evidence. Keep dragging this out. You are doing all the work to destroy the NIST report and reveal the govenment lies. The report is like the Billy Joel song, "Its Just A Fantasy" oh oh, oh oh, it not the real thing, oh oh oh oh.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
That's simply not true. Here's another link on the seismic spikes. Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush BAC - I think Kamala's excellent analysis in 396 TOTALLY discredits the NIST in this case and by extension you also BAC as you used them as a source. I don't think you can overcome this one BAC.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
so very well done, Mark.
Right. You are such an *expert*, Mark. False. Just read the reports folks. I provided links. Mark doesn't know what he is talking about. How many examples do I have to provide where Mark said something that isn't true before you see that? Hopefully, by now you have. If you haven't, you probably never will. You will NEVER find the truth if you rely on the sort of misinformation posted by folks like Kamala (Mark). ROTFLOL! According to Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT? No, you got this claim from Kevin Ryan (the KOOK water treatment expert)'s description of Wierzbicki's analysis. Right? But Ryan didn't get the description right, as he got most things wrong. Folks, if you want to know what Tomasz Wierzbicki, a professor of Applied Mechanics at MIT, really thinks, then read this report by him on the WTC impact: http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf It says nothing like what Kevin Ryan (the water treatment expert) claimed it said. And here is what MIT structural engineers REALLY think, folks: http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/ (this has Wierzbicki's report and others) http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20VI%20Materials%20&%20Structures.pdf http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/skyscrapers.html http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/ http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/WTC_TMS_2002.pdf http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/31114/1/61145960.pdf You see? Kamala seems to be trying to misrepresent what MIT engineers think. Ask yourself why he is doing that? This is a misrepresentation of what NIST says in its reports. Why would Kamala misrepresent this? Did Kevin Ryan tell him this? Or Steven Jones? Or perhaps Rodriquez (the janitor) or Rodriquez's lying lawyer? The NIST reports say what is burning. Can you provide a link to this claim? It's not that I don't trust you ... but I hope its not Kevin Ryan, the water treatment expert. I bet not one of those engineers has come forward to support your bombs in the towers theory, Mark. The problem is Mark, you don't actually know or understand what NIST did. Actually, Mark, that suggests the affect of the impacts was worse than the simulations were able to capture ... i.e., more damage to the structure. By all means, tell us how your bombs in the towers theory manages to make landing gear, engines and fuselage exit the opposite side the towers. How do you figure this, Mark? Have you looked at the trajectory of the engine through the tower? Are you suggesting that somehow an engine traveling through the building would do less damage to structural members in the building than one that didn't manage to exit the other side? Tell us Mark, how does that work? Actually, Mark, one could easily interpret the discrepancies you've claimed to mean the simulation UNDERestimated the ability of the structure to deform and stop the plane. That would suggest that the structure didn't slow the plane down as much as even the severe model showed and one explanation for that would that there was much worse damage inside the structure than even the severe case suggests. By all means, Mark, supply your source for all these claims. Or are you reluctant to do that? Perhaps structural engineers, experts in demolition, experts in engineering mechanics, experts in macro-world physics around the world. Because NONE of them seem to believe you, Mark. Any guess why?
It works like a fmj bullet works. If it hits something hard, it fragments. Bullet breaks bone, bone breaks bullet.If it doesn't hit anything hard, it passes through and does little damage. Duh.
Right. You are such an *expert*, Mark. You sure like to throw out that word expert at everyone. Meanwhile, you REFUSE to tell anyone what your area of "expertise" is... Tell us *incompetent at everything*, just what it is about the word could that you don't understand??? Or the words predicted, estimates, considered, partial validation, and assumed??? Do ANY of these words imply FACT, or do they imply HYPOTHESIS??? Another of your incompetencies - understanding of the English language. I believe he already told you that his source is the actual NIST report itself - the paper copy - NOT what's on the internet... That's probably something YOU'LL never look at - it would cost a few dollars to get a copy. But then again, you're content to believe "experts", and are in denial that these "experts" may put job security and the welfare of themselves and their families above TRUTH. Why an alphabet agency would never deliberately "off" somebody to shut them up would they???? But as long as there are shills like you helping keep the Amerikan public in their comas, they don't need to worry about offing the one or two "kooks" do they... BTW, why is it you also REFUSE to answer why there was no response from NORAD on 9/11 - considering how the whole squalid mess wasn't an inside job??? For the same reason you refuse to tell us your area of expertise - you don't have an answer...
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Gosh BAC. it seems like Critter in 401 has shown you a very obvious point that you couldn't figure out. I think your deductive abilities are very weak. It discounts everything you've ever said.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
why is it that you DO refuse to address this concern BAC? Why?
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
He refuses to answer any part of 9/11 that is clear cut. He takes scientific evidence and lies about it, openly. He repeats the same lie over and over. It's really absurd to "debate" with such a poster.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Hmm, would that be anything near free-fall speed?
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
I am very simple. I have read and studied many materials related to 9/11, and my one and only concrete conclusion is that it does not completely add up. IMHO, I am inclined to believe, from my own research and reading the research of others, that it very well may have been an inside job. Unfortunately, I have no concrete evidence to this that would absolutely stand up in a court of law. I, and many others believe that it was indeed an inside job, yet many others believe that the facts simply do not add up, then there is the minority - including yourself - that are adamant defenders of the "official story". My solution is simple. DEMAND an independent investigation of 9/11, with unlimited access to all information and material concerning 9/11. Then you can hear from "experts" who can truly sort out the facts, and we shall see who is correct.
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
The landing gear was up you shill. The obvious demolition of the towers is apparent to anyone that can THINK straight.
God is always good! For now you are just a useful tool, and errand boy for your handlers. You are a cup of coffee, the TV movie of the week. Your usefulness is limited, as is your time. 4UM is my home field. I've read 4UM for almost 2 years and have posted for over 1 1/2 years. I'll decide what is discussed. I'll frame the thread and reply. You'll just respond like a trained gerbel. I'm going to tease you like a bluegill with a redworm. There is more deception coming. All in time, my government bootlicker. You and the official C.T. are doomed. 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
In the NIST, it states that for one of the 47 core columns to fail from aircraft impact, the girder would have to be a direct hit from the engine. NIST also states that the fuselage was severely damaged by the floor slabs and the airframe crushed itself against the floor. Both impacts had the airframe broken up in 0.2- 0.3 seconds. The steel in the towers was so over engineered. The core girders were 42,000psi, the truss/floor system was 52,000psi and the outer columns were 100,000psi.
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
4UM is my home field. I've read 4UM for almost 2 years and have posted for over 1 1/2 years. I'll decide what is discussed. I'll frame the thread and reply. You'll just respond like a trained gerbel. I'm going to tease you like a bluegill with a redworm. There is more deception coming. All in time, my government bootlicker. You and the official C.T. are doomed. love it :P
My claimed "expertise" would be irrelevant. Just as yours is. Because both of us could claim expertise in ANYTHING. We could claim to be anything. This is the internet. You don't know my name (and never will) and I don't know your name (and don't care). But there are thousands and thousands of bonafide experts in the world in such subjects as structures, fire, steel, impact, demolition, concrete, seismology and macro-world physics. And so far only a couple have come forward to suggest what you claim. And there is plenty reason to doubt those few given what else they've said and circumstances under which they've drawn their conclusion. By all means, let's hear him confirm that. You will not find the truth on a foundation of lies and misinformation. If you can't even get past the silly and unnecessary notion of bombs in the towers and no Flight 77, there really is no point in discussing any serious question about 9/11 with you. Indeed, the pursuit of nonsense is making it impossible to get answers to the serious questions.
Or your constitutive models for what is hit are too hard. Bone doesn't always break bullet. A very logical explanation for why models may have shown the structure preventing an engine from passing through it when it didn't.
What have you been reduced to, Red ... their cheerleader. I thought you were Summa Cum Laude.
And who will run this *independent* investigation? Who will be the *experts* they depend on? Just curious...
you're too much for me BAC. you ask good question in 415 - who will be the experts, the judges, etc. we are incapable of getting satisfactory conclusion on this issue. It is those evil faces that came out of the smoke. They are stopping us.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I see you've given up, Mark.
For a group that claims 4UM is their *home field*, is it staggering the number of members who have bozo'd themselves so they won't be faced with seeing facts they don't like or that don't fit their world-view. That's a sign of weakness, not strength in one's convictions. ROTFLOL!
A stopwatch says that all three buildings were brought down with controlled demolition - you can't escape that. Follow the money; same story. Your Mossad pals were the agents! What's YOUR problem with the truth??? Well ........?
BAC, what you fail to realize is around here the debate about whether 9/11 was an inside job has been settled since this forum started in 2005. Since you have offered nothing new around here that would make anyone question that conclusion people have no reason to debate you.
God is always good! All you have to do, to stop arguing with BAC, is ask him point blank this question. If you were a guy who owned a building just like Building 7 at the World Trade Center, and needed to have it demolished, how long would it take a demolitions expert to set up the charges on a building that size for a safe and expedient demolition? Ask him that question, and he runs away like a little girl. In fact, ask ANYONE that question and they won't tell you a fucking thing. Because it takes a couple weeks possibly a month or two to design the demolitions, cut easements into the super structure, and then of course, place the charges and riggings. The ONLY way they could have demolished Building 7, is if it were a planned event, END OF STORY. NOBODY SEEMS TO ASK THAT QUESTION NOW DO THEY???
And fires can get quite hot even without jet fuel as a starter. The Windsor Tower fire in Madrid, for example, had MEASURED temperatures of over 1400 F. And then there are sources like this:
The Windsor Building after the fire was extinguished Windsor Building Partial Collapse
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#385. To: intotheabyss (#383)
(Edited)
will we have enough rope?
#386. To: SKYDRIFTER (#378)
A stopwatch says that all three buildings were brought down with controlled demolition
#387. To: BeAChooser (#381)
The bozo filter is aptly named, perhaps.
#388. To: robin, ALL (#384)
Why would you bring up Madrid? One steel-framed building burned for 18 hours and never fell.
#389. To: BeAChooser (#388)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#390. To: robin, ALL (#389)
Try reading the entire post.
I mentioned both buildings and linked to good info on both.
#391. To: BeAChooser (#390)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#392. To: robin, ALL (#391)
Read the links I posted, it explains the difference between the structures.
#393. To: BeAChooser (#392)
The Windsor Tower is hard evidence against the conspiracy crowd.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#394. To: BeAChooser (#392)
The structure was mostly reinforced concrete and ALL the portions that relied on a steel frame collapsed. Those are veriable facts.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#395. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#380)
I've been very courteous.
#396. To: BeAChooser, RickyJ., Peetie Wheatstraw, BTP Holdings, InToTheAbyss, Wakeup, Angle, Critter, Skydrifter, Diana, Christine, Jethro Tull, Honway, Formerlurker, Hounddawg, Lodwick, Burkeman1, Horse, IndieTx, Esso, Innieway, Red Jones, Ferret Mike, , *9-11* (#377)
(Edited)
#397. To: BeAChooser (#380)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#398. To: Kamala, BeAChooser, Diana (#396)
#399. To: Kamala (#396)
#400. To: Kamala, ALL (#396)
When NIST uses the words, "could", "predicted debris impact", "representations", "estimations of areas", "estimates", "considered damage" and "debris field calculated from aircraft impact analyses", "partial validation" and "assumed" are nothing more than computer simulated data with no scientific evidence of any kind.
Again, NIST has no proof or evidence or scientific experimentation
There is no energy for this according to MIT engineers. Calculations done have the airliners basically expending ALMOST all their energy on impact and crushing themselves on the girders and floors slabs. There was no energy left to remove all the SFRM from 1,000's and 1,000's of square feet of the towers.
NIST states that the towers were fuel poor and ventilation limited.
NIST states that the fires had around 20 minutes of fuel as the transient fires moved, but burned for around 40 minutes near the bowing areas. What's burning?
NIST severe computer modeling of interior "damage" consisted of, if a workstation had an estimated 5% damage, then the WHOLE workstation and SFRM was REMOVED and considered 100% destroyed.
Berkley engineers got access to the steel from the impact zones and stated the steel preformed great and the towers preformed as designed.
NIST could never duplicate the INTERIOR debris path or workstation layouts. No matter if NIST ran its less, moderate base or more severe computer simulations, NIST could NEVER duplicate the aircraft debris path or the complex interior layout of the towers.
WTC 1 had landing gear eject out from opposite the impact hole and the WTC 2 had a engine, landing gear and some fuselage exit opposite the impact hole.
NONE of the computer simulation re-enacted those events. This means ALL computer impact debris path cases were incorrect,
In the WTC 2's case, that would mean that the airliner did much LESS damage and MAY have missed the core completely.
In NISTs computer simulation, to get the towers to collapse, NIST had to use a more severe model that had the airliner impacts and debris path doing MASSIVE damage, even though NIST has no evidence.
NIST then removes ALL the fireproofing from girders and trusses, DOUBLES the time of the fire in the bowing area from 40 to 90 minutes, DOUBLES the known damage area from 5 to 9 floors, increases the sagging trusses to 42 INCHES, models the towers WITHOUT the hat truss, and then DISCONNECTS the floor systems from the perimeter columns. Then the towers are "poised" for "progressive collapse".
NIST quote, "Not all the observables were perfectly matched by the simulations due to the uncertainties in exact impact conditions, the imperfect knowledge of the interior tower contents, the chaotic behavior of the aircraft breakup and subsequent debris motion, and the limitations of the models".
Who here at 4UM is willing to trust and believe anything from a research project that admits this?
#401. To: BeAChooser (#400)
Are you suggesting that somehow an engine traveling through the building would do less damage to structural members in the building than one that didn't manage to exit the other side? Tell us Mark, how does that work?
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#402. To: BeAChooser (#400)
When NIST uses the words, "could", "predicted debris impact", "representations", "estimations of areas", "estimates", "considered damage" and "debris field calculated from aircraft impact analyses", "partial validation" and "assumed" are nothing more than computer simulated data with no scientific evidence of any kind.
By all means, Mark, supply your source for all these claims. Or are you reluctant to do that?
#403. To: BeAChooser, Critter (#400)
#404. To: innieway, BeAChooser (#402)
why is it you also REFUSE to answer why there was no response from NORAD on 9/11
#405. To: Red Jones (#404)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#406. To: BeAChooser (#392)
The steel collapsed as rapidly as the fire protection coatings allowed.
#407. To: BeAChooser (#390)
You will never find the truth on a foundation of misinformation.
#408. To: BeAChooser (#400)
By all means, tell us how your bombs in the towers theory manages to make landing gear, engines and fuselage exit the opposite side the towers.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#409. To: BeAChooser, *9-11* (#400)
(Edited)
Ha ha. Ho ho. Hee hee. It's like torture isn't it? It's like your worst nightmare. You are pulling your hair out or like having one fingernail at a time pulled.
#410. To: Critter (#401)
(Edited)
#411. To: Kamala (#409)
Ha ha. Ho ho. Hee hee. It's like torture isn't it? It's like your worst nightmare. You are pulling your hair out or like having one fingernail at a time pulled. For now you are just a useful tool, and errand boy for your handlers. You are a cup of coffee, the TV movie of the week. Your usefulness is limited, as is your time.
#412. To: innieway, Kamala, ALL (#402)
Meanwhile, you REFUSE to tell anyone what your area of "expertise" is...
I believe he already told you that his source is the actual NIST report itself - the paper copy - NOT what's on the internet...
BTW, why is it you also REFUSE to answer why there was no response from NORAD on 9/11
#413. To: Critter, ALL (#401)
If it hits something hard, it fragments. Bullet breaks bone, bone breaks bullet.If it doesn't hit anything hard, it passes through and does little damage.
#414. To: Red Jones, critter, innieway, all (#404)
#415. To: ladybug, RickyJ, ALL (#407)
My solution is simple. DEMAND an independent investigation of 9/11,
#416. To: BeAChooser (#414)
What have you been reduced to, Red ... their cheerleader
#417. To: Kamala (#409)
#418. To: christine, Kamala, ALL (#411)
Kamala - 4UM is my home field. ... snip ...
christine - love it :P
#419. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#418)
#420. To: BeAChooser (#418)
For a group that claims 4UM is their *home field*, is it staggering the number of members who have bozo'd themselves so they won't be faced with seeing facts they don't like or that don't fit their world-view. That's a sign of weakness, not strength in one's convictions. ROTFLOL!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#421. To: RickyJ (#420)
 | This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#422. To: BeAChooser, Kamala, Ricky J, Diana, Christine, TommyTheMadArtist, Robin, Skydrifter, ALL (#412) (Edited)
(My reply to BAC) If debris and fire compromising the integrity of Buildings 1, 2, and 7 were the cause of their failure - WHY didn't Building 3 collapse to the ground??? Consider the layout of the TC Complex... Building 3 is closest in proximity to the Towers; and apparently suffered a heavy pounding of debris on top of it - ie a helluva lot of weight came crashing down on it. Considering it's relatively small size compared to the Towers, I'm sure the structural supports were also comparably smaller, and therefore NOT designed to take this kind of weight... YET in spite of very obvious structural damage, it somehow managed NOT to collapse completely to the ground: If 3 could handle this and not collapse, where is the logic that 1 and 2 WOULD collapse completely to the ground? Now go back and look at the layout again. Building 6 lies directly in line between Buildings 1 and 7. If there was sufficient "debris damage" to building 7 to cause complete failure, HOW did this debris MISS Building 6 to a great enough extent as for it to maintain enough integrity NOT to collapse??? Evidently, there was indeed quite a bit of debris damage to building 6 (the building furthest from us in this photo - the closer is 5): Let's look at some of the "serious questions". Shall I go on? If ANY part of an "official story" is found to be fraudulent, then how can one be expected to believe it? When someone begins telling you lies, it makes you have to question everything they say. Your attempts to show the building collapses as happening exactly as the "official story" underline an attempt to discredit the whole "truth movement". The bottom line is the "official story" of 9/11 is Swiss Cheese, and the facts surrounding the collapses are only a tiny bit of the overall picture. Your attempts at making the "official story" credible by validation of the collapses are nothing more than the attempts of a shill to fracture the "truth movement". The likes of you are what I (and many others) consider to be traitors to this country - every bit as much as the ones currently holding office. When shit turns turtle in this country, I suggest you don't stick around.
(BAC to Innieway)
You will not find the truth on a foundation of lies and misinformation. If you can't even get past the silly and unnecessary notion of bombs in the towers and no Flight 77, there really is no point in discussing any serious question about 9/11 with you. Indeed, the pursuit of nonsense is making it impossible to get answers to the serious questions.
I don't believe I've ever said anything about "bombs in the towers", or that there was "no Flight 77". I DO maintain that there is something seriously wrong with the "official explanation". It's NOT getting answers to the "serious questions" that puts one in the position of feeling something is seriously wrong with the "official explanation" - including the collapses and the Pentagon. 
(1) What's behind the obvious "stand down" of NORAD?
(2) Why didn't the Secret Service IMMEDIATELY whisk the President away upon learning of an "attack" upon America? His location was no secret.
(3) Why did Condi lie to the 9/11 Commission with the statement (not an exact quote, but close enough to get the gist of it) "No one ever considered an attack like this using planes and targeting those buildings" - when in FACT, NORAD had conducted exercises specifically with such an attack in mind?
(4) What about the "prophetic" insight of PNAC in calling 1 year before the attacks for the need of "A new Pearl Harbor" in order to rapidly facilitate the "process of transformation" which they called for?
(5) Why did the Administration originally oppose setting up the 9/11 Commission?
(6) Why have the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission come out and publicly stated it was flawed? Their comments:
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."
(7) Why were so many fore warnings ignored?
(8) What about the put options placed on United Airlines?
(9) What role does Dov Zhakeim (Comptroller of the Pentagon at the time of the attacks) play in this? Remember, the forte of his company (Systems Planning Corporation) is designing, building, installing, and maintaining remote control systems for large aircraft.
(10) Why did the 9/11 Commission receive a tiny amount of funding compared to the Monica/Clinton investigation?
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
#423. To: innieway (#422)
9/11 Truth: The Complete Media Blackout of the WTC7 Collapse The Incredibly Strange Collapse of WTC Building 7 How Did They Know Building 7 Was Going to Collapse? 9/11 Truth: What Happened to WTC Building 7 9/11 Truth: Structural Failures vs. Controlled Demolitions 9/11 Truth: FEMA & NIST's "Pancake Theory" is a Lie 9/11: Does this look like "structural failure" to you? Evidence Showing US Government Complicity in the 911 Attack 9/11 Truth: Even More Video Proof of Controlled Demolitions 9/11 Truth: Steven Jones on WTC 7 and Controlled Demolition 9/11: Rudy Giuliani & the Feds Destroyed the WTC Evidence
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46158
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46251
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46138
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46113
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46292
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46157
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46094
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46090
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46093
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46290&Disp
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46156
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#424. To: RickyJ, ALL (#420)
But Ricky, what you fail to realize is that I'm not arguing whether 9/11 was or was not an inside job. I'm simply pointing out that you won't find the truth about 9/11 by starting with a foundation of lies. It makes you too easy to discredit.
BAC, what you fail to realize is around here the debate about whether 9/11 was an inside job has been settled since this forum started in 2005.
.
.
.
Comments (425 - 467) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest