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: 37467
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 (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: BeAChooser (#36)
Yeah, but in your usual deceptive nature, you fail to tell everyone that the localized area of the collapse took 4 HOURS for it to collapse!!! It was so slow, it was like watching a slow motion car wreck on your dvd player.
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
Gravity.
If the (non-existent) Superevil Supergeniuses were that brilliant, they would have been able to make the WTC fall to the side and maximize all the death and destruction.
"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." -- Marshall McLuhan, after Alexander Pope and William Blake.
Gravity Foolish answer. They were designed to fall sideways? They were designed not to fall at all, ChipShot. And yet another foolish comment. Your dialogue has grown tiresome. Touch my monkey. Love him! Touch him! Liebe mein shmenke! Your foolish observations will earn you Bozo until further notice. Your foolishness deserved no serious reply. Update: And...Velcome back to Sprockets from your short bozo. Dieter has missed you and seen fit to extend clemency. I think we were discussing how damaging a skyscraper...3 of them...by fire and/or impact..would not result in a symetrical fall unless symetrical damage had occurred...such as a demolition. That's called physics.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell BeOcho, Would you believe 13 seconds? What figure did the 9-11 Commission cite? The figure is still a free-fall - even if you insist that a dog is factually a misrepresented "animal," not a dog. You came here to watch people line up to call you an asshole? If you're into pain, you hit the proper address!
Why would the top 20 or 30 floors fall straight down to begin with? If the building collapsed due to weakened steel, do you seriously think all four corners of the top of the building would have fallen at the same exact time, and at the same rate of collapse, considering there were 80 to 90 stories of undamaged steel and concrete that it had to crash through? If the collapse happened as the official story describes, where the steel was weakened by fire, then the top of the building would have tipped, and would have either come to a rest at an angle, or slid off of the undamaged section of the building. Additionally, even if the floors pancaked as described by the official story, the building would not have collapsed at the same rate as if it were falling through thin air, but would have taken at least 96 seconds to collapse, as per Dr. Judy Wood, a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University. A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory One must also take into consideration that the building turned to dust as it fell, so the available energy to break floors below was diminshed by the pulverization of the concrete and steel. Thus, the floors should not have pancaked, as there was not enough energy left over.
If you could read and comprehend it would be nice. He asked me in a prior post if I was a pilot, insinuating that is what I needed to comment on matters surrounding the Pentagon. All one needs is to have reason, deduction and conclusions based on real hard science. Not some computer models that you can tweek the sofware anyway you want to get the desired outcome. Bad data in, bad data out. Ask this question. Whats in it for the whistleblowers to step out and tell the truth? Nothing but hassles, lawsuits and heartaches, job losses. I come from a family of firefighters. In private my relatives know what happened, but in public, they would never make such claims. I did some work in the pyrotechnics industry. I still have a close friend there. We have talked privately and he KNOWS it was a demo job, but he would deny it in public on a bible. I've asked him to come forward, but he has a wife and kids, a long standing job and flat out told me, NO. I've seen some of the computer tech gear used in firework shows. This was back in 2001. He was then talking about radio controlled shows with no wires or anything was very close. He had seen demos of it at testing grounds. This was for firework shows, can you imagine what we have that we don't know? Anything can be done, the tech hard ware he saw was developed elsewhere, more than likely from the military. There are 1 1/2 million engineers in this country. Why do we keep using the same ones? The same ones with ties to govenment funded projects. The same engineers who gave us the OKC report. In any real independent investigation, there would be no ties as to taint any conclusions or research. This wasn't the case in any of 911's investigations. These government experts were involved in the BPAT/FEMA report. The Silverstein/Weidlinger report, and the NIST report. All 3 reports contradict each other. Even though the same engineers worked on them. Very strange "experts".
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
Thats correct. If you look at the videos and photos, NIST wants us to believe that the building and gravity crushed itself. To this day, NIST does not explain the mechanics of the collapse. So lets take WTC 1. We are supposed to believe that 14 floors crushed the entire tower? If you look at the videos, as the building explodes, there is nothing above it but concrete dust. The debris is being ejected out and away from the tower. The steel and dust is outside the tower itself. What is crushing the tower? Air? The real kicker is, as the debris is falling, the tower explosions/collapse almost keep pace with debris falling through the air. Now, I don't subscribe to the 9 sec collapse trap. It took both towers around 15 seconds total. That still is WAY too fast for a "progressive gravity collapse". I think the average time of collapse per floor was around 1/5-1/6 of a second for the towers and 1/8 of a second for WTC 7.
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
There is only one account of a giant scoop hole in the face of the south WTC 7. Why don't you ccp the account of employees being escorted right through the WTC 7 lobby by rescuers and reporting light damage and a light dust in the lobby of WTC 7. If there was this giant scoop, the damage would have been massive, and debris would have blocked the lobby and promenade of the building. The hard facts are, there is no proof of a giant scoop, and even if there was, asymmetrical damage and fire cannot result in a symmetrical collapse. I would like to see this damage/diesel hypothesis tested. Not with computers either.
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
According to BAC's experts, I guess so. Now, I don't subscribe to the 9 sec collapse trap. It took both towers around 15 seconds total. That still is WAY too fast for a "progressive gravity collapse". The 9 to 11 second figures are what NIST and the 9/11 Commission stated, and correspond to the seismographal evidence, but you're right, an extra six seconds doesn't account for the breaking of 90 or so solid undamaged stories of concrete and steel.
Because, as you say, the honest ones would end up in Gitmo or harrassed to death by the SS arm [IRS] of TheStateInc, or be terminated from their positions...or worse.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell you mean not wet noodles?
Former NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer: As I approached, I came down and saw the big hubbub going on around Building 7. I walked around it, I saw a hole, I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down though. There was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any creaking or any indication that it was going to come down. It had some damage to it but nothing like what they're saying...nothing to account for what we saw. I am shocked at the story we've heard about it, to be quite honest.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Quite true. Also, why are the world's architects, physicists, civil engineers, and contractors credible when they say they have built a structure that could never, ever, fail from an airplane impact? Yet, when one does fail shortly after said airplane impact, their qualifications and credentials are instantly irrelevant? Suddenly they don't know what they're talking about.
Some photos show the top floors actually starting to rotate. However for that rotation to continue, the building would have needed to have enough structural rigidity to continue rotating, and also would have needed something to rotate against that would not move as it was being pushed by the section that was falling. Unlike trees, buildings are mostly empty space inside.
where oh where have I read that before?
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Pretty soon, the BLoviator will be adding you to his bozo list and eventually, he'll be talking to only himself...mucking up the thread as much as possible to dissuade real debate and purpose. The real purpose of his existance on this forum.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
These people think Silverstein - a landlord in New York was leading sapper units on 9/11 - I guess in their views being a New York landlord builds in the expertise to command sapper units under combat conditions. Must be because he is a Jooo and they get super secret Mossad training from birth.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I'm curious, Mark. What created such high temperatures in the Windsor (Madrid) tower? There was no jet fuel ... no fuel of any kind. It was an ordinary office building. Yet temperatures of over 1400 F were MEASURED. Can you explain that for us? In your *expert* opinion must every side of the tower have been engulfed in fire to initiate a collapse? Many other experts with degrees and experience in structural engineering, fire and steel don't seem to agree that's required. In fact, I haven't seen a single name of someone with credentials in those areas that says what you apparently believe is a requirement for collapse. Why is that? Again, no recognized, named experts in structural engineering, fire or steel seem to agree with you. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps it's that just because conspiracy websites claim something is true, doesn't make it so? Here, listen to what a real expert says ... 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." Here are pictures of the south tower in the minutes before the collapse. I sure see fire. And notice the sagging floors well before the collapse occurred. Did bombs cause those sagging floors? Hydrocode calculations show this is the corner where remnants of the plane ended up and this was the fire it was experiencing just minutes before the collapse. And note that NIST fire code calculations show that the temperature in that corner of the tower at that time would likely have been over 1000 C before the collapse (see http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05161.pdf figures 6-33, 6-34 and 6-46). Do you have any experts in structures or fires who say those calculations are wrong? And what about the North Tower. This image shows fires visible on several floors of the North Tower more than an hour after the jetliner impact (and long after the jet fuel was gone). They do not appear to be "oxygen-depleted. Also, I take it that you don't believe what the state of the art fire codes are telling experts in fire. They indicate that the fires in the towers reached upwards of 2000 F for periods that would be enough to severally weaken any steel that had lost its fire protection coatings. So it just seems to me your claims are at odds with the facts. This is a complete distortion of the truth. First, NIST and FEMA engineers did not test steel from the impact/fire zones for impact. They performed hydrocode analyses that show the impact of the planes would have severed many structural members and severely compromised any fire protection coatings. And investigators found plenty of hard physical evidence that the impact severed and deformed dozens of structural members. Furthermore, as I already showed, using statements from the designer himself, the towers were NOT designed for impacts at "any" speed. They were designed for a relatively low speed impact. The difference in energy between the design impact and the actual impact was nearly an order of magnitude. Furthermore, Les Robertson, the head designer, also stated that fire following an impact was NOT considered in the design. I would be curious to know where you are getting your "facts", Mark. This is not true. NIST did not perform fire temp tests on steel from the area where their fire code models show the most intense fires occurred. What those tests do, actually, is confirm the fire codes because they show the temperatures in the tested locations agree with what the fire codes say the temperatures would have been in those locations. Furthermore, NIST did not find a reliable, robust method to test temperatures much above 250 to 300 C. They based their conclusions only on tests (using the condition of paint). Those tests would not have worked in regions where steel reached a 1000 C ... which is what the fire codes show happened and experts around the world believe happened. Like I said, Mark, explain how the Madrid fire in an office with no fuel produced temperatures of over 1400 F (measured)? Here's what real experts say, readers. http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html " The fires spread, and there are significant temperature variations throughout those areas where the fires are located, depending on the type and arrangement of combustible material being consumed and the availability of air supporting combustion. The advancing fires elevate the temperature within the tower. Future estimates will place it between 1,700º and 2,000ºF—further stressing the structure. At the 80th floor of WTC 2—in the northeast corner, where office furnishings had been deposited by the rapid path of the plane—the fire burns at such a high temperature that a stream of molten metal begins to pour over the side of the tower." http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixh.pdf “It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner. This is the area where the sustained fires were seen. Video records and photographs indicate that the material first appeared at 9:51:52 a.m. and continued to pour intermittently from the building until the time of collapse. Some of the material can be seen falling in Fig. H–21. Close-up video and photographs of the area where the material is pouring from have been examined and show that it is falling from near the top of window 80-256. The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had originally pooled on the floor above, that is, floor 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The fact that the material appears intermittently over a several minute period suggests that the floor was giving way bit by bit. The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggests that significant wreckage from the plane passed through the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed. Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 and closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temperature, but melt over a temperature range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of liquid increases. The Aluminum Association handbook (Aluminum Association 2003) lists the melting point ranges for the alloys as roughly 500 °C to 638 °C and 475 °C to 635 °C for alloys 2024 and 7075, respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca. 1,000 °C), and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.”
Regarding the possibility of thermite at the WTC site:
That's because of three factors. First, the Madrid tower didn't have a impacting jet to instantaneously spread an inferno across the structure. It took time for the fire to spread. Second, the steel in the Madrid structure still had intact fire proofing coatings. Those coatings are designed to protect steel members for hours from intense fires. Third, the Madrid fire was fought by firefighters. So it's no surprise that the Madrid fire took 4 hours to collapse the steel while the WTC with intense fires across several floors from the very beginning, damaged fireproof coatings and no firefighting collapsed in an hour. Which is why so few (and I mean FEW) structural engineers, experts in steel and fire, and demolition experts around the world share your concern, Mark.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
An excellent documentary that looks in extreme depth at the question of whether the Twin Towers and Building 7 fell on their own due to structural failure, or if they were taken down in carefully planned controlled demolitions using pre- planted explosives. DVD available at http://911weknow.com 9/11 Mysteries (Full Length, High Quality) 1 Hour 30 minutes 41 seconds
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
It did. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 It didn't. As the videos prove. Ah, yes ... the dental structure expert: http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/pdfs/Wood1.pdf. Notice the emphasis in her resume on biological materials and STATIC analysis/tests. NOTHING on buildings or fire or steel or concrete or dynamics or impact. Here's a even more complete resume: Judy Wood - http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/Wood.html Check out her research papers. Here's a typical one "Mapping of tooth deformation caused by moisture change using moiré interferometry." , Dental Materials, Volume 19, Issue 3, Page 159. You won't find ANY on structures or buildings or impact problems of the sort that occurred in the WTC towers. But you will find plenty on DENTAL ISSUES. And let's let everyone know Mr. Wood's theory about the collapses ... http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html "Ambrose I. Lane talks with special guest Dr. Judy Wood about her evidence for the use of high-energy weapons in destroying the WTC Towers." Not bombs ... Star Wars. Finally, the problem with Dr Wood's billiard analysis ... *********** http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm Judy Wood is a mechanical engineer. Yes, it's true she specializes in dentistry but that doesn't mean she's wrong about her Billiard Ball from the towers. She produced a graphic showing how long it would take a billiard ball to fall from every ten floors of the towers. She starts from the 110th floor, drops a billiard ball, goes to the 100th floor, drops another billiard ball and so forth on down to the tenth floor. Apparently, her only experience with pool is hitting the cue ball off the table. She forgets a little ditty called "Transfer of Momentum." As Greening points out in his paper, the speed of the collapse increased as the floors above collected the floors below. These are not impacts as you would find on a highway. These impacts are being sped up by gravity. Think of billiard balls in a vertical track. ****************
This is not accurate. There was one person that did get killed when WTC7 came down.
God is always good! Greening's hypothesis did not purport to disprove the possibility of cutter charges using thermite reactions---it merely proposed an alternative explanation relying on aluminium supplied by the crashing planes! His hypothesis however cannot be replicated empirically. See Dr. Steven Jones' paper here.
Apparently, you don't take into account a floor of the WTC is not a pool ball sitting on a pool table, but a solid structure held up by beams, trusses, and connected to a steel core and outer shell. It takes ENERGY to break those bonds, more so than simply another floor dropping one story on top of it. Even IF the initial collapse would have crushed the immediate floors underneath, the failure would have been a slow gradual drop, not a collapse like that caused by a brittle object breaking. Thus, there would not have been enough energy to cause a catastrophic failure, especially when it was apparent that the concrete was pulverized into fine dust, as that would consume much of the available energy.
It didn't. As the videos prove. Of course it DIDN'T, but it SHOULD have if it had been a collapse caused by the mechanism described by your "experts".
You won't find ANY on structures or buildings or impact problems of the sort that occurred in the WTC towers. But you will find plenty on DENTAL ISSUES. And as much as you love to disparage Dr. Wood's background, here's her bio. From Brief Biographical Sketch for Judy D. Wood, Ph.D. Judy D. Wood is a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEMâs Biological Systems and Materials Division, and currently serves on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division. Dr. Wood received her One of Dr. Woodâs research interests is biomimicry, or applying the mechanical structures of biological materials to engineering design using engineering materials. Other recent research has investigated the deformation behavior of materials and structures with complex geometries and complex material properties, such as fiber-reinforced composite materials and biological materials. Dr. Wood is an expert in the use of moiré interferometry, a full-field optical method that is used in stress analysis. Dr. Wood has over 60 technical publications in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and edited monographs and special technical reports. Dr. Wood started to question the events of 9/11 on that same day when what she saw and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. Since that day she has used her knowledge of engineering mechanics to prove that the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers could not have happened as the American public was told. Yes gravity would indeed be a factor here but the billiard ball example is not a good one at all. The towers weren't just suspended in mid air waiting for a transfer of momentum so they could go merrily on their way. The towers were backed up with 47 huge steel columns in the core and many more smaller ones around the perimeter. If only the floors and the outer smaller perimeter columns came down that day, then I might agree with you that the towers coming down was just a case of bad engineering by the designers of the WTC towers. But that is not the case with the WTC towers. The whole building came down including the 47 massive steel columns that were bearing the weight of the building and had done so for almost 30 years. Fire didn't bring the core columns down.
God is always good! Ah yeh, what does she know?
That might be a pretty interesting book. Any idea if the gag order on the NYFD about talking of 9-11 is true??
Excellent clear point. The floors
of the Towers were not independent masses. The billard analogy is not
applicable.
911 Mysteries available on Google here
You ain' supposed ta' know that unless you is one of the chosen ones too bro. You must not be a goyim like dese otha' foke heah. Shalom.
Q: Even if we take it as a given that the planes impact could cause the towers to fail - WHY did they fall the way they did? That is the whole purpose of this thread - to explain the tilt of the cap of the south tower, the tilt that suddenly stopped and corrected itself so that the tower fell straight down. As soon as the pivot point on the opposite side of the tower was broken, the entire upper portion of the tower was pulled straight down, accelerating at 32 ft./s2. This downward force was much greater than the angular force as evidenced by the very slow speed of the inititial tilt compared to the relatively fast speed of the free-fall. Therefore, while it looked like the tower stopped tilting, it actually continued to rotate very slowly as it fell straight down. The additional rotational movement was obscured by the cloud of smoke. Imagine somebody balancing on a tight-rope, and tipping over to one side before they fall. The free-fall will appear instantaneous compared to the slight wobbling before the fall. I think this may be the same effect that happened with the South Tower." Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
Ask this question. Whats in it for the whistleblowers to step out and tell the truth? Nothing but hassles, lawsuits and heartaches, job losses. I come from a family of firefighters. In private my relatives know what happened, but in public, they would never make such claims. I did some work in the pyrotechnics industry. I still have a close friend there. We have talked privately and he KNOWS it was a demo job, but he would deny it in public on a bible. I've asked him to come forward, but he has a wife and kids, a long standing job and flat out told me, NO. I've seen some of the computer tech gear used in firework shows. This was back in 2001. He was then talking about radio controlled shows with no wires or anything was very close. He had seen demos of it at testing grounds. This was for firework shows, can you imagine what we have that we don't know? Anything can be done, the tech hard ware he saw was developed elsewhere, more than likely from the military. There are 1 1/2 million engineers in this country. Why do we keep using the same ones? The same ones with ties to govenment funded projects. The same engineers who gave us the OKC report. In any real independent investigation, there would be no ties as to taint any conclusions or research. This wasn't the case in any of 911's investigations. These government experts were involved in the BPAT/FEMA report. The Silverstein/Weidlinger report, and the NIST report. All 3 reports contradict each other. Even though the same engineers worked on them. Very strange "experts". All good points - and particularly the "fear factor" which does much to explain why people with credentials, whose income depends upon those credentials, will not come forward - they are AFRAID. Government is the biggest contractor and employer, both direct and indirect, in the country. For Engineers, and some other types of Professionals, being blackballed by the goobermunt means you get a job driving a cab - if you can get a cabby license. Those with the courage to buck the official fairy tale are few and far between. Look at Dr. (formerly Professor) Stephen Jones. He had tenure so they couldn't really fire him but he was forced to take a golden handshake and leave BYU. However, what I actually started to comment on was this: This is a point I've made before, on LP, that observers and analysts who study what the "Black Budget" people are doing estimate that the "Black Budget" people are, at any given time, working with technology a minimum of twenty years in advance of anything the public is allowed to know. My favorite example is the SR-71 Blackbird - which went operational in 1958. That means that it had been in development, on the drawing board and in prototype, for at least 5 years or more. Think about that. A Mach 3+ aircraft was fully operational in 1958. Chuck Yeager had only broken the Sound Barrier in October of 1947 (14 October to be exact). Yet a mere 11 years later a Mach 3+ aircraft is fully operational - and remained in use up until just a few years ago. The government would not even admit that it existed until 1972. Lord only knows what is operating now (there are hints that there are craft operating at hypersonic speeds, mach 6+, and rumors of partial anti-gravity assists) (there are even rumors of a "Black Budget" Space Program - which would go some distance in explaining why NASA has been kept using antiquated technology - as a cover and diversion). The point being that we do not know what we do not know i.e., we do not know the governments true technologic capabilities because they are buried under layer after layer of secrecy. We do not know whether, and what, some type of technology not in the public domain was used to bring down the Towers. What we do know is that the official fairy tale does not account for all of the available observations and evidence and is therefore not accurate.
Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. - Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary
This is pseudo-scientific abble-gabble. Statements such as "The horizontal force and angular momentum was very small in comparison to the gravitational, i.e., vertical force" are essentially meaningless. You are confusing momentum and force---which shows you don't even understand basic physics. Gravitational force should have accelerated rotation of the top of the South Tower consistent with conservation of angular momentum of the top around its center of gravity and linear momentum of its center of gravity away from the vertical axis of the building. The downward force on the building structure would in fact have decreased as the top continued tilting. Instead, we witness a deceleration of rotation as the top collapses straight down. This indicates that the block on which the top was rotating had simply disintegrated, which is precisely what we witness in videos of the event. There is no explanation for this disintegration that can rely on gravitational force alone.
There have to be at least 100,000 PhD physicists in the world. Exactly how many of these real-life *physicists* agree with your version of events, then? LMAO!
How many physicists think gravitational force can destroy conservation of angular momentum? Not one. You should stick to your model airplanes---but next time make sure the area is well ventilated when using the glue.
Comments (81 - 467) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#42. To: IndieTX (#40)
(Edited)
Physics, engineering and aviation [our specialty] aside, I wonder how TheStateInc 9-11 believers account for the mathematical statistical improbability..no, impossibility.. of 3 buildings, on fire, all with different damage profiles, all collapsing STRAIGHT DOWN,
When they were designed to withstand such damage, and when none ever have before in history
They were designed to fall sideways? Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#43. To: AGAviator (#42)
They were designed to fall sideways?
#44. To: AGAviator, ZIPPORAH, CHRISTINE, SKYDRIFTER, FORMERLURKER, INNIEWAY, HONWAY, ALL, KAMALA (#42)
(Edited)
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
#45. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#38)
And if it's a video that starts out by claiming the WTC towers collapsed in 10 seconds, I have to tell you that it starts out with a demonstrable falsehood.
(Bozo filter is working for BAC, apparently.)
#46. To: AGAviator, IndieTX, Kamala (#42)
They were designed to fall sideways?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#47. To: BeAChooser, *9-11* (#35)
#48. To: FormerLurker (#46)
#49. To: BeAChooser, *9-11* (#36)
#50. To: Kamala (#48)
What is crushing the tower? Air?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#51. To: Kamala (#47)
There are 1 1/2 million engineers in this country. Why do we keep using the same ones? The same ones with ties to govenment funded projects. The same engineers who gave us the OKC report.
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
#52. To: Kamala (#48)
The debris is being ejected out and away from the tower. The steel and dust is outside the tower itself.
#53. To: Kamala (#49)
http://www.studyof911.com/video/flvplayer/speaking_out.htm
#54. To: YertleTurtle (#43)
If the (non-existent) Superevil Supergeniuses were that brilliant, they would have been able to make the WTC fall to the side and maximize all the death and destruction.
Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#55. To: FormerLurker (#46)
Why would the top 20 or 30 floors fall straight down to begin with?
#56. To: christine (#52)
you mean not wet noodles?
#57. To: IndieTX (#44)
#58. To: AGAviator, IndieTX, YertleTurtle, BeAChooser (#39)
#59. To: Kamala, AGAviator, ALL (#12)
To AGAviator - According to NIST, the jet fuel was burned off in minutes and the WTC office floors were fuel poor and the fuel in a given area would burn up in around 20 minutes.
The west side of WTC 2 never even had any fire or heat at all.
The south tower fires were basically out in around 40 minutes. Much too short to heat any steel to any degree.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946czm.jpg 
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/fireST915b.jpg 
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/010thermNF942.jpg 
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east12.jpg 
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/9-72.jpg 
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/docs/wp_wtc29c.jpg NIST/FEMA engineers looked at and tested the steel from the impact/fire zones and it survived the impacts and preformed great, just as the main designers and architects said it would. The towers not only were designed for an airliner impact, but multiple impacts, at any speed and the fuel dumped involved.
NIST did fire temp tests on the steel from the impact area and found physical temps of 480- 600.
NIST again states that fuel was gone in minutes and it was a office fuel poor fire.
#60. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#26)
Thermite
#61. To: Kamala, ALL (#41)
Yeah, but in your usual deceptive nature, you fail to tell everyone that the localized area of the collapse took 4 HOURS for it to collapse!!!
#62. To: Kamala (#33)
London Evening Standard, and Daily Mail: An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11
#63. To: All (#62)
http://www.belowgroundsurface.org/
#64. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator, Kamala, ALL (#46)
If the collapse happened as the official story describes, where the steel was weakened by fire, then the top of the building would have tipped,
and would have either come to a rest at an angle, or slid off of the undamaged section of the building.
Additionally, even if the floors pancaked as described by the official story, the building would not have collapsed at the same rate as if it were falling through thin air, but would have taken at least 96 seconds to collapse, as per Dr. Judy Wood, a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University.
Note: The animated gif does not take gravity into account. The weight of the cue ball does not combine with the weight of the 2 ball in this illustration. This is just to illustrate transfer of momentum in a vertical tube. (I have little doubt some of these dishonest conspiracy sites will take this out of context)
#65. To: Kamala (#0)
No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#66. To: BeAChooser (#60)
#67. To: BeAChooser (#64)
(Edited)
Apparently, her only experience with pool is hitting the cue ball off the table. She forgets a little ditty called "Transfer of Momentum."
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#68. To: BeAChooser (#64)
and would have either come to a rest at an angle, or slid off of the undamaged section of the building.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#69. To: BeAChooser (#64)
Check out her research papers. Here's a typical one "Mapping of tooth deformation caused by moisture change using moiré interferometry." , Dental Materials, Volume 19, Issue 3, Page 159.
Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including
From 1999 to 2006 Dr. Wood has been an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. Before moving to Clemson she spent three years as a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech. Dr. Wood is currently writing a book with Morgan Reynolds on the physical evidence explaining the events on 9/11.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#70. To: BeAChooser (#64)
As Greening points out in his paper, the speed of the collapse increased as the floors above collected the floors below. These are not impacts as you would find on a highway. These impacts are being sped up by gravity. Think of billiard balls in a vertical track.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#71. To: FormerLurker (#69)
#72. To: FormerLurker (#69)
. Dr. Wood is currently writing a book with Morgan Reynolds on the physical evidence explaining the events on 9/11.
#73. To: RickyJ (#70)
The towers weren't just suspended in mid air waiting for a
transfer of momentum so they could go merrily on their way. The towers were
backed up with 47 huge steel columns in the core and many more smaller ones
around the perimeter.
#74. To: angle (#63)
#75. To: Destro (#58)
These people think Silverstein - a landlord in New York was leading sapper units on 9/11 - I guess in their views being a New York landlord builds in the expertise to command sapper units under combat conditions. Must be because he is a Jooo and they get super secret Mossad training from birth.
I worship Israel. Kill all Arabs and let Allah sort 'em out. We are the chosen ones. Shalom.
My Rabbi is my dentist.
Gots to keep da' money in da' family.
#76. To: FormerLurker (#68)
(Edited)
A: "I don't believe the tilt suddenly stopped and corrected itself. The horizontal force and angular momentum was very small in comparison to the gravitational, i.e., vertical force.
#77. To: Kamala (#47)
All one needs is to have reason, deduction and conclusions based on real hard science. Not some computer models that you can tweek the sofware anyway you want to get the desired outcome. Bad data in, bad data out.
" I've seen some of the computer tech gear used in firework shows. This was back in 2001. He was then talking about radio controlled shows with no wires or anything was very close. He had seen demos of it at testing grounds.
This was for firework shows, can you imagine what we have that we don't know?"
#78. To: AGAviator (#76)
I don't believe the tilt suddenly stopped and corrected itself. The horizontal force and angular momentum was very small in comparison to the gravitational, i.e., vertical force. blah blah blah
#79. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#78)
You are confusing momentum and force---which shows you don't even understand basic physics.
Bozo List (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#80. To: AGAviator (#79)
Exactly how many of these real-life *physicists* agree with your version of events, then?
.
.
.