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: 46535
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 (1-145) not displayed.
.
.
.
#146. To: AGAviator (#144)
I agree. We have seen more than enough hypothesizing. What is needed is a legitimate investigation by independent experts. Ones not prone to publishing false information as answers to legitimate questions. We need an investigation into the molten steel discovered days and weeks after the collapse. We need the fire,EMT, and police personnel coming forward describing the nature of the demolition of WTC7 interviewed under oath and we need the supervisors interviewed under oath. We need a forensic analysis of the 9/11 Eyewitness video that recorded the smoke billowing from the base of the South Tower and numerous explosions prior to the collapse. We need independent experts to investigate and explain in detail how a plane crashing on or about the 80th floor caused structural "damage beyond belief" in the basement including the failure of key structures. Well, I could go on for another ten pages,put the point is I agree. We don't need a hypothesis, we need answers to significant questions.
Given the structure of the building core; it's possible that the collapse would have NORMALLY been telegraphed through the structure, itself. In engineering terms that's referred to as the product of "Transmisability." Essentially, smacking the end of a pipe with a hammer. Thereafter, it's a matter of observing magnitude & pattern. A lateral blast from explosives might have a relatively minor vertical component, notable as being minor. What IS significant is the role of the well documented molten steel, as to its disguising that 'transmisability.' There's my focus. Laterally directed shape charges (concussive) would still have a vertical component; but was it predominantly absorbed by the molten steel? I'm assuming that to be the case. I'm more interested in a delay in the seismic transmission. Good luck trying to find the information, but I think there is such a critter as a lateral thermite shape-charge. That might be a commercial product, as well as military. In his intellectual and emotional cowardice, BAC probably has me [Skydrifter] on 'Bozo,' so you'll probably need to feed that idea to him independently of a ping to me - I assume. I don't know how the Bozo filter works. "Whooo, Goldi! Get Back, BeOcho."
Wouldn't you expect the first movement to be where "they" put their explosives? LMAO! Such a typical response from someone who has no meaningful answer. Exactly as I had predicted. ;0)
"We are Americans. This is our country. He, who would take it from us, by force or by stealth, is our enemy. And it is our purpose -- nay, it is our duty, to our children and to their children and to our yet unborn posterity -- to use all feasible means to destroy him." Dr. Revilo P. Oliver
And your proof for this is what? Again, what is your source for this? Here's what actually happened in the Madrid fire, folks: http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html The color of the smoke doesn't prove a fire is oxygen starved. This source discusses that fact at length: http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html Notice in that link all the photos of fires that clearly aren't oxygen starved which are still putting out dark grey or black smoke. And, for the record, NIST has not said that the WTC fire was oxygen starved ... everywhere. The face where the collapse was observed to start was clearly burning quite fiercely prior to the collapse. Something molten was even seen dripping from one corner of that face. And keep in mind that a wind was blowing into the building from that direction, providing a good source of oxygen. Finally, the fire was also no more fuel starved than the one in the Madrid tower. Both were office buildings filled with what office buildings are filled with. Is this dying out? The photos I posted aren't scientific proof? ROTFLOL! And they weren't hanging loose. They were sagging. Pulling on each end. Plus, the support they had provided to the outer face along the lengthwise dimension was gone. All NIST tested were floor systems with fireproofing intact. But the experts and their codes indicate that the fireproofing materials would have been damaged by the impact of the plane. Do you know what a boundary condition is? Really? This is picture of molten aluminum: So is this: And this: And this: And this: Well, here is an image of burning aluminum from a very credible source ( http://www.csar.uiuc.edu/~tlj/aluminum.htm): It didn't. The top clearly tilted as the collapse began. Well where are all the experts in fire and fire codes who agree with you? They seem to have no problem with the notion that temperatures in the WTC reached 1800 F. Care to prove this? Here are the reports you need: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P5SimulationofFiresinWTC1&2.pdf http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P5SimulatingtheCoupledFire.pdf http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P5ReconstructionofFires.pdf http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StructFireResp&Collapse2.pdf http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05161.pdf But not from the locations where the fire were most intense in the models. ROTFLOL! Readers ... see http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf First, Skilling was not the main designer. This is false. The chief structural engineer of record ... onsite in New York where the design was done ... was Leslie Robertson. Robertson relocated to New York City when the firm was awarded the WTC contract. He was the project engineer. Not Skilling. In fact, according to http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20I%20History.pdf "Robertson was the most influential engineer on the project and assumed the position of lead structural designer of the towers. Robertson had as much influence on the form of the building as anyone apart from Yamasaki himself." Just because Robertson had a boss (Skilling) in Seattle does not mean that Skilling was the head designer or aware of all design details in New York. Second, Skilling was talking about an analysis that was NOT part of the design of the towers. It was a back of the envelope "what if". And Skilling was only partially right in his white paper. The towers did indeed survive the impact ... no one denies that ... (in fact, NIST has said that had there not been a fire, the towers probably would have remained standing for a time) ... but he was wrong in concluding they would not suffer substantial damage. Eyewitnesses and MODERN computer modelling show that is untrue. We can't fault Skilling. He really had no means to determine that in the 1960s. Skilling didn't have access to the types of computer codes routinely used in building design and analysis today. Those code and the computers needed to run them weren't developed until the 70's and 80's and 90's. They couldn't do the sort of impact (or fire) analyses possible today. Such analyses show that the impacts must have shattered dozens of structural members, and both analyses and tests show that the impacts would have to have taken the fireproofing off many of the surviving structural members. And it is the loss of those fire coatings which is the key to collapse of the towers in the fires that followed. Demartini was a construction manager. Do you know what that means? He was NOT a structural engineer. There is a difference. In education. In expertise. In that statement he made, he completely overlooked the importance of velocity in the impact. It was NOT "designed" for a high speed impact. PERIOD. In fact, do you know what Demartini's degree actually was? ARCHITECTURE. Also, Demartini was not the construction manager during the construction of the towers. He was 14 when construction began. So I doubt he was all that familiar with their design. On the other hand, Leslie Robertson was. Leslie E. Robertson – " The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires." (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument) Leslie E. Robertson – "The twin towers of the World Trade Center were designed to resist safely the impacting by the largest aircraft of that time...the intercontinental version of the Boeing 707. In no small measure because of the high level of competence of the men and women of LERA, each of the towers resisted the impact of an aircraft larger than the 707. Yes, fire brought down the towers, but the structural integrity created by the engineers of LERA allowed perhaps thousands of persons to evacuate the buildings prior to the fire-induced collapse." (http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LesRobertson.html) By all means, provide your source for this claim. Besides this white paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. NIST stated that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” Third, Robertson is on record stating that reports that a 600 mph impact was considered in the design are flat out WRONG. According to Robertson, "It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark." It was designed for a 180 mph impact. Not 600 mph. Remember, the impact energy is not only a function of mass but velocity SQUARED. Robertson went on to note that the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated. Leslie Robertson is also quoted stating that "To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance." By all means. Provide your evidence that he has been caught lying. Not relevant. The impact of the planes dislodged much of that fireproofing. And that is in the NIST report too. No, they did not claim ALL the fireproofing was scraped off. As I've already pointed out, with sourced material from NIST, the samples tested were NOT from the locations where NIST fire models showed the peak temperatures. Furthermore, the methodology used by NIST to test samples preselected out any exposed to high temperatures because it required the paint still be basically intact. NIST said the method was limited to temperatures around 250 C. There are photos of some people in the impact hole on the face of the structure opposite from where the collapse clearly began. It proves nothing. The steel on the face of the building opposite the impact hole was not cool.
No, the chief structural engineer of record, Leslie Robertson, said categorically that the towers were not designed to withstand an airliner hit as occurred on 9/11. They were designed for a relatively low speed impact with nearly an order of magnitude less energy. Plus fire wasn't considered. It is just fortunate the towers lasted as long as they did.
And you completely missed, or rather, completely ignored my point.
God is always good! I see you missed my earlier post where this proof was provided. Here it is again, just for you this time: http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html There is even an analysis in it of what's necessary to throw the sections of steel that were observed the distance observed.
The fact that Dr Greening has a PHD in CHEMISTRY and EX-professor Jones' degree (and experience) is in sub-atomic particles is far from irrelevant or inconsequential. The problem with your side in this debate is that EX-professor Jones' is about the best you can come up with ... out of a world filled with experts who really do understand structures, demolition, thermite, chemistry, fire, steel, impact, seismology and macro-world physics. The rest of your *experts* are mostly philosophers, theologians, economists, janitors, software developers and jazz musicians. ROTFLOL! No, you just proved you didn't actually read the report from Dr Greening that I kindly linked you to (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf). The challenge is in that link. Since you insist, let's take a look at the appropriateness of Jones' *experiment*. From the above link: ----------------------- 3. Prof. S. Jones at BYU has recently tested the reactivity of molten aluminum towards materials such as rusted steel and concrete. (See his Feb, 2006, article at: Scholarsfortruth.org). While his results are interesting, Prof. Jones has not conducted anything close to the tests I suggested. Ironically, Prof. Jones quotes from an e-mail I wrote to him on January 26th 2006, where I outline the type of test that would settle the question of the role of molten aluminum in the WTC collapse: "I suspect our different views will never be resolved by discussion alone. I therefore suggest an experimental resolution: The NIST fire tests, which were designed to simulate the conditions in WTC 1 & 2 after the aircraft impacts, should be repeated in a more realistic environment that includes shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc.... Then I want to see two things happen: (i) The fires melt the aluminum, and (ii) The molten aluminum ignites violent, explosive reactions." In spite of what I suggested in my January e-mail, namely simulations that reproduce conditions in the WTC fires and thus be an acceptable test of my claims, Prof. Jones carries out two entirely different experiments: (i) Molten aluminum was poured onto a section of clean, dry, rusted steel. Because there were no violent reactions in these two tests, Prof. Jones concludes that my hypothesis is invalid! This conclusion is reached in spite of the fact that gypsum was not even tested, and none of the materials were pre-heated or crushed. Of all the parameters not duplicated in Prof. Jones' experiments I would argue that the crushing of the materials is one of the most important. Why? It is a well-known fact that solid-state reaction rates depend on the surface area of the reactants. A one kilogram block of concrete has a surface area of about 0.06 m^2. The surface area of one kilogram of concrete crushed to 60 um particles has a surface area calculated as follows (BAC - see link) = 67 m^2. Crushed (pulverized) materials are much more reactive than solid blocks of material. ... In conclusion I would say that Prof. Jones is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but I would argue that his "simulation" lacks most of the key conditions that were present in the WTC impact zones on 9-11, namely prolonged fires ignited by aviation fuel, sustained by burning plastics, paper, furniture, etc, that directly heated water, aluminum and rusted steel in the presence of crushed concrete and gypsum. I challenge Proj. Jones to repeat his tests under these conditions and publish the results. ----------------------- And we see he has not done either. And to those who would like to know what Dr Greening actually theorized, I suggest reading the above link. Regarding this claim (since you got it from EX-professor Jones): http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html "a) Professor Jones tells us that a metal low in chromium, with “abundant manganese” rules out the possibility of it being structural steel. Checking the steel specifications for the time tells us otherwise, though." And for those who would like to see other reports on 9/11 by Dr Greening, go here:
Now, honway, surely you aren't claiming that the video imagery from multiple sources (CNN, NBC and others) that clearly shows the collapse took more than 10 seconds ... on the order of 15 seconds, in fact ... are fakes. Because that seems to be the only alternative, if you want everyone to believe that the collapse time was 10 seconds ... which it seems, you do. And just because you show us a graphic annotated by who knows who that the collapse "began" at a certain tim and ended at another, isn't all that convincing. The NIST effort was much more definitive, drawing from many more sources. AND IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE VIDEO IMAGERY CLEARLY SHOWS. What do the seismologists who produced and analyzed that data you post say? "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." And finally, note that ImplosionWorld, experts on demolition, is on the record (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf) stating that "In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibrations during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration "spikes" documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data. This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and wuold certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presense of any unusual or abnormal vibration events."
Don't you guys know by now that was an optical illusion? Where have you been? http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf "Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed." (NIST 2005)
Did it? The claim that the antenna were collapsing first is not proof of that. Because that was determined to be an optical illusion. Don't you remember the discussions about that at LP, honway? This was pointed out to you, here: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30926&Disp=All&#C338
Who would put explosives in WTC? And why?
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
Let's not forget this part: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm Published on Tuesday, February 4, 2003 by the Prince George's Journal (Maryland) Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United by Margie Burns George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family. ...its bids for contracts are noncompetitive - and also did security work for the Los Alamos laboratory before 1998. Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. But the White House has not publicly disclosed Bush connections in any of its responses to 9/11, nor has it mentioned that another Bush-linked business had done security work for the facilities attacked. ______________________________________________________________________ http://www.betterbadne ws.dreamhosters.com/2006/04/ No airplane hit building 7 yet it collapses at free fall speed as did the twin towers earlier that same day. But the work required to wire a 47 story building for a controlled demolition would have had to begin some time before Sept 11, 2001 and that points to Marvin Bush’s security company.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Bloviator and bac are bozod..no nn to put up w/bravo sierra from disruptors. There ain't enough time in the day. Filter 'em. There's enough to read without reading BS, which is the only reason they're here. Let 'em talk to themselves.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell How & Why the World Trade Center fell on 9/11 http://1933key.com/news/911_wtc_collapse AND if BeAChooser can show us why BLDG 7 was NOT mentioned in the 911 Report.....? ANSWER- That would prove "EXPLOSIVES" were used and then the next question would be "were they used in the Twin Towers?".
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
Oh, puleeeeze. ROTFLOL! (My turn.) Show us the videos and links.
"We are Americans. This is our country. He, who would take it from us, by force or by stealth, is our enemy. And it is our purpose -- nay, it is our duty, to our children and to their children and to our yet unborn posterity -- to use all feasible means to destroy him." Dr. Revilo P. Oliver
Excellent reminder. Thank you.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/ You frequently quote the NIST. In the link above,click on the link to 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and hear Dr. Shyam Sunder of the NIST explain Tower 1 collapsed in 11 seconds and Tower 2 collapsed in 9 seconds. If you cannot believe the data presented by the NIST team, why do you keep posting it?
404 Not Found.
"The typical size of an Al particle is roughtly 18 microns in diameter." It is posting this type of nonsense that identifies you as an agenda driven "ends justifies the means" co-conspirator after the fact. Your dishonesty concerning this topic is repugnant.
One more time. AND if BeAChooser can show us why BLDG 7 was NOT mentioned in the 911 Report.....? ANSWER- That would prove "EXPLOSIVES" were used and then the next question would be "were they used in the Twin Towers?". "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
I saw these exact same posts at LP... what do you do, copy and paste them here? Those are not sagging floors. I proved that at LP and I'm not going to bother doing it again. Say, why don't you go to freedomunderground? They could use a shill to liven things up there.
How about giving me some *meaningful answers* to the following questions. Are buildings falling sideways also evidence of conspiracies? (2) Why are the overwhelming majority of the planet's scientific, engineering, and construction professionals to be believed when they allegedly say they've designed structures capable of withstanding the impact of a full-sized jet airliner, but not to be believed when they explain post-mortem why said structures didn't actually withstand said impact? Enjoy.
wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf "Finding 1a.8: The initiation of global collapse was first observed by the tilting of building sections above the impact regions of both WTC towers. WTC 1 tilted to the south (observed via antenna tilting in a video recording), and WTC 2 tilted to the east and south and twisted in a counterclockwise motion. The primary direction of tilt was around the weak axis of the core (north-south for WTC 1 and east-west for WTC 2). An earlier building performance study, performed by a private-public sector team with funding support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), concluded that the core failed first in WTC 1 based on vertical movement of the antenna observed in a video recording from due north that did not capture the antenna tilt due to the angle from which the video was shot. NIST is reevaluating this conclusion based on new visual information available from a different angle. " Now look carefully at this video (you may have to download it first): http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem5/911.wtc.1.demolition.east.1.wmv You will see clearly that the antenna tilted ... just like the top of the building was tilting as the collapse began. And if you look closely, you will see that the antenna doesn't shorten in length. It simply descends with the top of the descending building until obscured by the dust. If you can't see this, I can't help you. This video http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Shaking%20before%20WTC-1%20collapse.mpg also clearly shows the antenna is coming down at the same time and speed as the top portion of the building. You can clearly see that the length of the antenna above the top does not change as it descends, hence it is not sinking into the core (relative to the rest of the structure) as alleged.
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
9/11 Revisited v.2 1hr 23m "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
You are, of course, referring to this particular audio file: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html at the link you provided. Well, my response is this. Even professionals get sloppy in what they say at times (unfortunately feeding you conspiracy theorists). But facts are facts. The real time videos I've posted clearly show that the collapse of the tower took about 15 seconds. And even conspiracy theorists such as Jim Hoffman acknowledge this. And still photos that show large sections of structure descending well ahead of the collapsing level of the structure make it quite clear that the structure did not completely collapse in 9 or 11 seconds, i.e., free-fall speeds. I'm sorry to see that you will persist in this, honway, because then it makes it more difficult to take anything else you promote seriously. By the way, I hope your readers will take the time to watch the various presentations at this link.
Still, it's not burning silver. And the pictures of molten aluminum I showed also aren't silver. As was claimed.
Let's examine a few dishonesties in the above. This is written by someone who doesn't understand how fast buckling can occur. This is at odds with what firemen whose quotes I've posted say. Are the firemen part of the plot? He was referring to the firefighting effort. Let's ignore the fact that Ryan is presenting himself as an expert of structures, fire and steel. Let's just point out that he actually was fired for sending out a letter with his conspiracy theory to a conspiracy group on UL stationary. Big no no. Yes, an *expert* who has been only been studying sub-atomic particles and cold fusion for the last 30 years. And he wasn't even able to get his own peers at BYU to agree with him. ROTFLOL! False. Silverstein did not say "pull WTC 7". He said "pull it" referring to the firefighting effort. That's not what ImplosionWorld says. They say that is FALSE. And a few questions. Since the central assertion of this website seems to be that Silverstein planned this whole thing to make a bunch of money, how did he manage to arrange for the hijackers to fly planes into the buildings? Was he working with the hijackers? Was he also the one who planted the bombs you allege were in WTC 1 and WTC 2?
I'll repeat a second time: One more time. AND if BeAChooser can show us why BLDG 7 was NOT mentioned in the 911 Report.....? ANSWER- That would prove "EXPLOSIVES" were used and then the next question would be "were they used in the Twin Towers?".
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
Did you? Maybe the readers would like to go see a thread at LP where you and I discussed this? Here: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=151407&Disp=212#C212 The truth is the experts at NIST concluded those were sagging trusses in those images. And I haven't seen a quote from a single structural engineer anywhere claiming otherwise. Can you supply us with one, Critter? "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." ************ Again, I hope the readers of your post will take a few minutes to visit this:
Thanks BAC for your efforts.
thanks BAC for being on top of everything. Did Goldi-Lox really kick you off of LP? You were a major part of that web-site. You'd think she'd realize that. I'm glad we have the premiere 911 expert of the world over here now. and he's been published on LP - so we know he's a real expert, not like those kooks.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
All you do is prove that the NIST report was a coverup. Anyone with a brain can see that those are not sagging floors.
I'm a kook and I was published on LP. Does anyone want my autograph?
wait a minute BAC. if you're a real expert (and I know you are), then you do not need to refer to web sites probably put up by KOOKs. Can't you find a regular mainstream media source, some real experts, not just somebody with a web site on the 'internet'. Internet is a bad source for information. I don't believe a word they say on that debunk web site. If you really are going to de-bunk the 911 conspiracy theories BAC as is your reputation, then don't use the internet as a source. Stick to the high-road. Post only from reputable newspapers, magazines & tv networks.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
BAC has never lost a single argument his entire life. Because every time BAC gets into it with anyone the other person always tires and gives up and quits arguing, and BAC is left still making his case - completetly unchallenged. He must be the smartest fellow in the world. Like on the other thread - BAC said that when the commercial jet hit the pentagon that the wings and tail section just fell off the plane before it hit the building. and that's why it left such a small hole in the building. Well, nobody's going to prove him wrong in this.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
He was referring to the firefighting effort. And he made his "smartest thing to do is pull it" comment right after saying "We've already had such a terrible loss of life." You'd think, if he was one of "them," he'd want more lives to be lost, not fewer...
Molten aluminum can, and does, appear different dependent on an the intensity of an external light source it seen in. With no, or very little, external light source, molten aluminum will appear reddish in color. However, in broad daylight it will appear silver in color because of its high reflective properties and it will reflect most of the light, thus it will appear silvery white. But you don't want to take my word for this; after all I am not a structural engineer. You better consult your local structural engineer before taking a stance on this.
God is always good! Ha! Ha! Your big problem with me is that I've READ large sections of the reports. I don't ccp 30 url's and 1000 word paragraphs from Popular Mechanics, Screw Loose Change and 911 Myths Debunked. I don't know if your being deceptive in your CCP, it just maybe that the sites you visit, exclude the damaging, conflicting results that are in the reports and quotes from others. Your already reduced to saying this is false, that is false, this is a lie, that is a lie. No, you just haven't READ the sections that have this information. Wait, I mean ccp. I don't ccp my information, I type it from memory because I've read the documents that contain it. You want sources? Do your own research. I'm not here to spend my time doing your work. You know what my qualifications are? I'm a concerned American citizen. I study 911 and the reports to point out all the deception, contradiction and false conclusions. The NIST report rests everything on computer modeling. NIST disgarded what real scientific evidence it had and preformed, because it didn't fit the pre determined conclusions. In almost every instance, NIST opted for the most extreme model, even though there was no proof of said conditions. NIST didn't even have enough proof on certain more realistic modeling. I have a very busy week of work and time is limited. I'll be around checking in briefly, so don't think I've gone away just yet. I have more FEMA/NIST deception for you. And don't get your lace panties in a bunch because I CCP this one reply.
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
Comments (186 - 467) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHowever hypothesizing explosives as a magic answer certainly does not lead us very far towards resolving that issue - especially when at least one structure did not begin its fall in the nice orderly "controlled demolition" manner.
#147. To: honway, Christine, Brian S, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#134)
#148. To: AGAviator (#139)
What a dumb-ass question.
#149. To: Kamala, ALL (#87)
Magnesium was the main fuel source at Madrid. Quit being deceptive.
1400 degrees may have been the physical temps, but the gas temps were over 2000 degrees.
Look at the photos of WTC 2 just before the collapse. The fires are just a black, smokey, fuel poor and O2 starved office fire, just as NIST as written.
If you compare the photos right after the impact, and then just before it was "poised" to collapse, the photos show the fires dieing out.
If the floors were hanging loose, then how do disconnected floors pull? NIST has no scientific proof of sagging floor systems.
All live scale floor model experiment preformed by UL for NIST bare this out.
Another NIST deception was that in their computer models, NIST used 9 floors for their model, instead of the known 5 floors of damage. Again, doubling and tweeking software to get the pre desired results.
Aluminum is silvery in a liquid nature.
If there were no fires on the western side to heat all the structural steel of the WTC 2, how did it symmetrically collapse.
NIST has no scientific proof of gas temps of 1800 or higher for anytime.
NIST got gas temps by increasing the known jet fuel load, then over ventilating the fire.
The steel saved was marked from its construction and was known to be from the location of the impacts.
The steel was deemed to have preformed great, and the impacts did very little to the towers.
Skilling, the main designer/architect said the towers could withstand the impact of an airliner and the resulting fire. The engineers/designers/architects planned for the fuel dump and the fires that would follow.
DeMartini said he truely believed that the towers could take multiple airliner impacts.
MIT engineers hired by FEMA/NIST concluded the airliners energy was expeneded upon impact. Just as the towers were designed. There was no energy left to "dislodge" or scrap clean all the fireproofing on 5 floors.
a research white paper signed by Skilling, the main designer/architect, in 1964, PLANNING FOR HIGH SPEED IMPACTS OF 600 MPH by airliners, this was in conjuction with the Port Authority.
All the skeptics like to quote Leslie Robertson. HE has been caught lying and has lots of ties to government funded projects.
Why don't ever mentioned that the fireproofing was upgraded in the mid 90's to 2.2 inches and a much more robust type was used. This is stated in the NIST report.
NIST claim ALL the fireproofing was scraped off
yet they tested the steel from the fire zones, they had the serial construction numbers of the girders and such, and only found temps of 480 degrees.
By that time, the north face was cool, and employees were standing in and around the impact zones.
How does cool structural steel fail?
#150. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#104)
The relevant question is whether the Towers were designed to absorb the impact of an airliner such as did hit them on 9/11 and stay standing. They were, and they did.
#151. To: BeAChooser (#129)
Sorry, Ricky, but you completely missed the point of what was modeled by Judy Wood. We weren't even talking about the transfer of momentum from the 767.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#152. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#117)
So you claim now that the air in the building was the prime agent in the sidewards expulsion of heavy metal building materials in the collapse of the Towers? Back up your assertion with proof. Photos of the collapse show 30 foot steel sections blown as much as 70 meters to the side. The aluminum cladding was also not weightless, but weighed many tons. You've made the claim that compressed air was sufficient to blow these heavy metal pieces over half a football field clear of the collapse, and now you're going to have to show that the collapse generated energy sufficient to allow the air in each floor space to compress and blow out that steel and aluminum to such a lateral distance. Your "breezy" ipse dixit that the air in the building "took along a few things with it" doesn't begin to prove your claim. Quantify it, or link to someone who has.
#153. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#124)
This is simply irrelevant.
Finally, Greening's challenge (and I notice you don't provide a link to it)
For example, F. Greening has suggested that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could melt, and that this aluminum might fall on "rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions." [Greening, 2006] So a few students and I did straightforward experiments by melting aluminum and dropping molten aluminum on pre-heated rusted steel surfaces. There were in fact no "violent thermite" reactions seen.
(ii) Molten aluminum was poured onto a clean, dry, concrete block. F. Greening’s latest hypothesis (another try) is this: oxygen tanks from planes somehow survived the plane crashes and the fireballs, yet leaked about an hour later to release the oxygen in the tanks.
Finally, the data from the solidified slag are not consistent with molten structural steel since it contains almost no chromium, yet shows significant fluorine and elemental sulfur, and high concentrations of nickel and zinc.
#154. To: honway, ALL (#127)
(start) is first visual indication of collapse, (end) is the end of the collapse.
#155. To: honway, BTP Holdings, Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#137)
BTP Holdings to Peetie Wheatstraw - Hey Peetie, someone should ask this nincompoop protege of BAC why the TV towers were the first thing to show movement at the start of the collapse. Betcha he has no answer. ROTFLOL!
Very good point.
It would be impossible to overstate the significance of the fact the first indication of collapse of the North Tower was the downward movement of the atenna array mounted to the core of the Tower. So we know the failure of the core initiated the collapse of the North Tower.
#156. To: honway, AGAviator, ALL (#141)
I don't think you appreciate the significance of the fact the collapse of the North Tower began with a failure of the core.
#157. To: RickyJ (#151)
#158. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#157)
Who would put explosives in WTC? And why?
#159. To: BTP Holdings, angle (#148)
(Edited)
Such a typical response from someone who has no meaningful answer. Exactly as I had predicted. ;0)
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
#160. To: angle, BeAChooser, All (#158)
#161. To: BeAChooser, honway (#155)
Don't you guys know by now that was an optical illusion?
#162. To: IndieTX (#159)
There ain't enough time in the day. Filter 'em.
#163. To: BeAChooser (#154)
(Edited)
Now, honway, surely you aren't claiming that the video imagery from multiple sources (CNN, NBC and others) that clearly shows the collapse took more than 10 seconds ... on the order of 15 seconds, in fact ... are fakes. Because that seems to be the only alternative, if you want everyone to believe that the collapse time was 10 seconds ... which it seems, you do.
#164. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, ALL (#160)
http://1933key.com/news/911_wtc_collapse
#165. To: BeAChooser (#149)
#166. To: BeAChooser (#164)
(Edited)
#167. To: BeAChooser (#149)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#168. To: BTP Holdings (#148)
Such a typical response from someone who has no meaningful answer
(1) If buildings falling straight down are evidence of a controlled demolition conspiracy, why is the building in the photo I posted starting to rotate?
Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#169. To: BTP Holdings, honway, ALL (#161)
"Don't you guys know by now that was an optical illusion?"
Oh, puleeeeze. ROTFLOL! (My turn.)
Show us the videos and links.
#170. To: Critter (#167)
#171. To: Critter (#167)
#172. To: honway, ALL (#163)
Dr. Shyam Sunder of the NIST explain Tower 1 collapsed in 11 seconds and Tower 2 collapsed in 9 seconds.
#173. To: honway, ALL (#165)
"The typical size of an Al particle is roughtly 18 microns in diameter."
#174. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, ALL (#166)
http://1933key.com/news/911_wtc_collapse.html
The FEMA and NIST claims that the collapse was the result of a fire requires the fire be equally distributed throughout each of the entire floors of the building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of time, so that all the load bearings members would fail at the exact same moment.
Photographs of the fires in World Trade Center 7, as well as video of the building, show there was no raging inferno, but rather only small office fires on just two floors.
WTC leaseholder Mr. Silverstein said to the fire department commander "the smartest thing to do is pull it."
Ryan unquestionably qualifies as a whistleblower. Having been promoted to the top manager of Underwriter's Laboratories water testing division, Ryan was dismissed on November of 2004 after an e-mail from him to Dr Frank Gayle of NIST questioning the collapse of the twin towers became public.
by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack.
The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.
#175. To: BeAChooser (#174)
(Edited)
#176. To: Critter, ALL (#167)
Those are not sagging floors. I proved that at LP and I'm not going to bother doing it again.
#177. To: BeAChooser (#176)
#178. To: BeAChooser (#176)
#179. To: BeAChooser (#176)
The truth is the experts at NIST concluded those were sagging trusses in those images. And I haven't seen a quote from a single structural engineer anywhere claiming otherwise. Can you supply us with one, Critter?
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#180. To: Red Jones (#178)
he's been published on LP - so we know he's a real expert, not like those kooks.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#181. To: BeAChooser (#176)
http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm
#182. To: Critter (#180)
#183. To: BeAChooser (#174)
WTC leaseholder Mr. Silverstein said to the fire department commander "the smartest thing to do is pull it."
#184. To: BeAChooser (#173)
Still, it's not burning silver. And the pictures of molten aluminum I showed also aren't silver. As was claimed.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#185. To: BeAChooser, honway, formerlurker, wakeup, angle, critter, esso, skydrifter, Uncle Bill, Bill D Berger, BTP holdings, *9-11* (#149)
.
.
.