Jack White Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 Bravo, Ron. Excellent research, eloquently stated. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Is it logical that Silverstein on the same program would say “pull it” about building seven, and not be referring to the same thing, demolition, that is used in reference to building six? Is it logical to think he knew what would be on the rest of the program when it was taped? Is it logical to think the fire department would be involved in a demolition? He was talking to the fire department commander after all. More on this subject here http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html They raise a few good points Problem #1, Silverstein is suggesting that the decision to demolish the building was optional. It might not have happened. Does this fit with the idea of a convenient insurance scam? No, not at all.Problem #2, why would the Fire Department willingly agree to engage in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud? Problem #3, and since when do Fire Departments blow up buildings anyway? Problem #4, and if it's so obvious that WTC7 was demolished, then why are the insurance companies not suing Silverstein for fraud? That same site also more info on the extent of the damage to the building http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html And the fires http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html Chapter 5 of the FEMA report here http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf has some good diagrams on the unique cantilevered structure of the building as it was built over another building. Also consider that the collapse is well underway before any supposed "squibs" are seen. http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html In my opinion, if anyone thinks Silverstein meant “demolish the building,” it’s because he or she wants to believe it and for no other reason that can be logically argued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 (edited) I don't have time to devote to back and forth debate on this, particularly as I've already stated previously to Len that it's a waste of time, so I'll reply to your last post and then let you win. Is it logical to think he knew what would be on the rest of the program when it was taped? They were talking about the same thing, the demolition of the buildings. Is it logical to think the fire department would be involved in a demolition? Why would it be involved? I assume it was concerned about being sure all of its people were out. He was talking to the fire department commander after all. He was talking to a TV interviewer. Problem #1, Silverstein is suggesting that the decision to demolish the building was optional. It might not have happened. Does this fit with the idea of a convenient insurance scam? No, not at all. Naturally he would present it as optional to a TV audience. He wouldn't tell the nation on TV that the building was coming down regardless, because there were contents in it that had to be destroyed and never see the light of day. (Tenants included the CIA, Secret Service, and Saint Rudy's Office of Emergency Management.) Problem #2, why would the Fire Department willingly agree to engage in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud? The Fire Dept didn't have to agree to engage in anything. It was told the building was coming down and it got its people out. These "problems" are nonsensical straw men. Problem #3, and since when do Fire Departments blow up buildings anyway? They don't (as far as I know)! Problem #4, and if it's so obvious that WTC7 was demolished, then why are the insurance companies not suing Silverstein for fraud? Well, at least one sensible question. I have asked this question myself. And the most reasonable answer is that in suing Silverstein for fraud, they would not only win the case but bring down the U.S. government as well. Perhaps any big businesses, which are after all allies of the government, would think twice about attempting such a cataclysmic action. Maybe they got compensated for their WTC losses and so didn't have to sue. (The Pentagon in 2003 couldn't account for 1 trillion dollars. I'd call that a nice all-purpose slush fund.) That's the best I can figure on that. Edited February 28, 2006 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 (edited) Adapted from a post I made on another forum Most 9/11 CT sites that quote Silverstein know that in context his comments are far less damning which is why they normally carefully edit the videoclip or transcript. He said: 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. The "it" in "pull it" could refer to two things, the building or the fire fighting effort. Since Silverstein was talking to the Chief of the NYFD he was obviously referring to the latter or do you think the NYFD leadership was "in on it" and sent hundreds of their colleagues and thousands of their fellow citizens to their deaths? Not very realistic for a group of people who had spent their entire working lives risking their lives to save others. Go to a NYFD firehouse and tell them that's what you think and see what happens (no I won't pay your hospital bills). [/color] Another obvious question that CT's don't ask is if Silverstein actually made such a comment to the chief why would he tell a reporter this on video? Why would they talk about this on the phone? Also if presumably the decision had been made weeks or months before to carry out the 9/11 attacks why would Silverstein and the chief only decide a few hours after the Towers had collapsed and 7 WTC set alight to carry demo the third building? Under different circumstances might they have not demolished it? In that case wouldn't there have been a high chance that the pre-planted explosives would have been discovered? The "they" in "they made that decision to pull" obviously refers to the NYFD did they also pull the Twin Towers? Ron did you go to the link Matthew provided?* In it there are numerous quotes from firemen that show that the NYFD was concerned WTC 7 was going to collapse and would injure or kill firemen and that "pull" is used to mean "pull back" or "pull out" firefighters. Also looking at the full quote your replies to Matthew's post don't make much sense. * http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html Edited March 2, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 One more question for Ron and the others who believe the buildings were imploded, if the buildings had indeed collapsed as every qualified expert said they did, due to a combination of impact and fire damage (exacerbated by damage/destruction of the fire proofing), what would you expect the collapses to have looked like? I.E. how would it have differed from how they collapsed on 9/11? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 ...the worst disaster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Very funny. But has this picture been doctored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 One more question for Ron and the others who believe the buildings were imploded, if the buildings had indeed collapsed as every qualified expert said they did, due to a combination of impact and fire damage (exacerbated by damage/destruction of the fire proofing), what would you expect the collapses to have looked like? I.E. how would it have differed from how they collapsed on 9/11? They would not have imploded into their own footprint, with 47 massive steel core columns somehow going poof. There would have been some unsymmetrical collapse, some toppling with damage to other buildings, and some of the massive steel core columns would have been left standing. (The "pancaking theory" doesn't work because floors do not pancake at virtually free fall speed, each floor is going to exert resistance.) If there is a source that explains how those 47 massive steel core columns came down, in convenient sections for easy hauling away in trucks for recycling, I would like to be directed to that source. (According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the 47 massive steel core columns didn't even exist. The core, we are told in a buried footnote, was just a hollow shaft.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 So Ron you are speaking based on your years of experience in structural engineering and failure analysis? You have yet to give an adequate answer to the question I posed at the start of this thread, if they collapse theory so obviously violates the laws of physics and engineering, of the millions of civil engineers and architects WORLDWIDE why has not a single one spoken out? Not even from countries like Iran, Pakistan, Cuba or (pre-invasion) Iraq? There was an Iranian PhD who declared that "The Jewish Walt Disney Company" made Tom and Jerry "in order to change the Europeans' perception of mice", "Jews were degraded and termed 'dirty mice.' ( http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD110106 ) yet not a single engineer from that country said there was anything suspicious about the collapse They would not have imploded into their own footprint, 1) Why not several high-rise buildings have collapsed or partially collapsed due to faulty construction or gas main explosions and they collapsed mostly into their own footprints such as the Areia Branca and Palace II buildings in Brazil, L'Ambiance Plaza in Connecticut and the Ronan Point building in London. 2) Much of the debris fell out of the footprints (see photo) a matter of fact Jim Hoffman (one of the leaders of the 9/11 truth movement) complained that "most of the debris fell outside of the footprints of either of the Towers, and the heavy debris landed on the adjacent low-rise buildings, and crushed large portions of them" ( http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/radio/youreyesdontlie/index.html ) with 47 massive steel core columns somehow going poof. There would have been some unsymmetrical collapse, some toppling with damage to other buildings, and some of the massive steel core columns would have been left standing. 1) Why should the buildings have toppled over? That would have required more energy. As mentioned above there are several cases of buildings collapsing symmetrically. Other than in earthquakes I don't know of any cases of buildings toppling over. 2) The steel columns didn't go "poof" they were crushed by the weight of the floors above them. 3) Why should "some of the massive steel core columns… have been left standing"? 4) Several adjoining building were severely damaged. (The "pancaking theory" doesn't work because floors do not pancake at virtually free fall speed, each floor is going to exert resistance.). 1) They probably didn't collapse at close to free fall speed. Free fall time would have been 9.22 seconds (or at little less since the debris pile was about 60 feet high) most estimates of collapse times are in the 13 – 16 seconds range. Various videos and photos show ejected debris falling faster than the buildings (see photo). The 9/11 Commission report did say 10 seconds but that was not a scientific report 2) Bazant and Zhou two structural engineers from Northwestern University calculated in a paper submitted to the ASCE that the "cushioning" effect of the frames could have been as low as 6% for cold steel and even less for hot steel. ( http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf pg. 6 ) If there is a source that explains how those 47 massive steel core columns came down, in convenient sections for easy hauling away in trucks for recycling, I would like to be directed to that source. Do you have a source that says they all did? The columns were made from sections 12 – 38 feet long (http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_403CD/html/pdfs/403_apb.pdf ), they were far more likely to separate at the point they were joined than to break. There were however a number of sections that measured 50 – 100 feet (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/company.html ). (According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the 47 massive steel core columns didn't even exist. The core, we are told in a buried footnote, was just a hollow shaft.) Where exactly did it say that Ron? What happened to the core is discussed in the two official SCIENTIFIC reports (ASCE and NIST) as well as in the various independent scientific papers including Bazant and Zhou (link above), eight from MIT (http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/ ), several more here (http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/ ), and this one from the Heavy Engineering Research Association (http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/Elaboration%20on%20WTC%20Paper.PDF ), and this one from the University of Sydney (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml ) or this one from a former Battalion commander with the NYFD who was high-rise Fire safety director NYC (http://downloads.pennnet.com/fe/wtc.pdf ), and this one from the University of Manchester's structural fire engineering dept. (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm ). There are more if you're interested. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Len, Thanks for the links. I'll read them as I find the time. On the 47 steel core columns, here's what the 9/11 Commission Report says (in a footnote on page 541): "The outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart. These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004." How do you suppose the commission knew all about the steel columns at the exterior walls, the width and even how many inches apart the centers were, but knew nothing about 47 massive steel columns at the core? I also like the last sentence, saying "see" a certain response to the commission. What a cruel joke that is. While the Warren Commission issued 26 volumes of documents, every single staff interview or "interrogatory" of the 9/11 Commission is under lock and key. Researchers have more info about the JFK murder than they know what to do with, but can get precious little out of the government on 9/11 but FEMA and NIST reports and the commission's whitewash paperback with its lies and omissions. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 4, 2006 Author Share Posted March 4, 2006 Very funny. But has this picture been doctored? I think it is a genuing shot from a tv screen of George talking about Hurricane Katrina. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 (edited) Len, ....but knew nothing about 47 massive steel columns at the core... Ron Paraphrased and bolding mine. Ron - please define "massive" - cite sources. How were they different than the parameter columns? Also - please tell us why you believe the central core should have remained standing. If you have Professional Structural Engineering sources, please cite. Steve Edited March 5, 2006 by Steve Ulman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 (edited) Steve, I do not have dimensions handy of the "massive" columns, but I have a photo of them handy as the building was under construction. You can see they are large. As for why they would be left standing, you can judge for yourself from the photo whether you think they could be brought down in an hour or so's time by a plane hitting the building and subsequent fire, or whether they would have to be taken out by explosives starting at the base (where explosions were heard). I have so read and believe that falling floors would not take down all of these core columns, though I don't have establishment engineering sources to cite which in any case would never say explosives had to be used. I just wrote the following on 9/11 on the JFK assassination forum, so I will repost it here as to my feeling on this whole subject. QUOTE(William Kelly @ Mar 5 2006, 08:20 AM) * After all, how many coincidences does it take to convince you to believe in a conspiracy? UNQUOTE While there is no set number, I think one can use this rule of thumb: enough is enough. The tragedy is that there is never enough coincidences to convince some people of a conspiracy. This is what is so maddening and frustrating in arguing with people about 9/11. There is no end to it. The official 9/11 conspiracy theory involves one coincidence after another, but people who debunk 9/11 "conspiracy theories" (by defending to the end the official one) don't take this into account. What they do is take each coincidence, no matter which one you bring up (e.g. Flight 77, or something, just coincidentally hit the one recently reinforced section of the Pentagon) and offer a "rational" explanation for it. Then the same with the next one (e.g., it just resembles controlled demolition, three buildings no less), and the next one (e.g., the general in charge of the Pentagon's National Military Command Center just coincidentally arranged to go somewhere at exactly 8:30 am on 9/11, leaving a greenhorn in charge when the crashes started and an ensuing "air threat conference" was bungled, with the general showing up again after all the planes had crashed). Explaining away each coincidence, and failing to see (whether by design or delusion) that the whole structure is put together with coincidences, is a classic example of not being able to see the forest for the trees. Ron Well, I have no idea what a "IPB image" is. Here is a link to the photo that I assume will work: http://www.hobrad.com/wtcconstruction_Small.jpg Edited March 5, 2006 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 5, 2006 Author Share Posted March 5, 2006 Here is a good photo of the CORE STEEL CONSTRUCTION. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I just wrote the following on 9/11 on the JFK assassination forum, so I will repost it here as to my feeling on this whole subject.QUOTE(William Kelly @ Mar 5 2006, 08:20 AM) * After all, how many coincidences does it take to convince you to believe in a conspiracy? UNQUOTE While there is no set number, I think one can use this rule of thumb: enough is enough. The tragedy is that there is never enough coincidences to convince some people of a conspiracy. This is what is so maddening and frustrating in arguing with people about 9/11. There is no end to it. The official 9/11 conspiracy theory involves one coincidence after another, but people who debunk 9/11 "conspiracy theories" (by defending to the end the official one) don't take this into account. What they do is take each coincidence, no matter which one you bring up (e.g. Flight 77, or something, just coincidentally hit the one recently reinforced section of the Pentagon) and offer a "rational" explanation for it. Then the same with the next one (e.g., it just resembles controlled demolition, three buildings no less), and the next one (e.g., the general in charge of the Pentagon's National Military Command Center just coincidentally arranged to go somewhere at exactly 8:30 am on 9/11, leaving a greenhorn in charge when the crashes started and an ensuing "air threat conference" was bungled, with the general showing up again after all the planes had crashed). Explaining away each coincidence, and failing to see (whether by design or delusion) that the whole structure is put together with coincidences, is a classic example of not being able to see the forest for the trees. Ron Something to think about when you talk about "co-incidences" is the Reason model of air accidents. Named after Professor Reason and sometimes known as the Swiss Cheese Model, it basically says why air accidents occur. Think of our defences against an accident (training, procedures, physical equipment, etc) each being a layer of swiss cheese. These defences aren't perfect, and have 'holes' in them. When all the holes in our defences line up, then an accident occurs. If the hole in even one layer in moved, a straight path through the holes is not made and the accident does not occur. These 'holes' are equivilent to your "co-incidences"; sometimes a number of co-incidences do actually happen. If a major disaster had NOT happened, those co-incidences would not have been noticed. It's only because the 'holes' lined up that we notice them. Also do a search for Boeing's 'chain of events'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now