What did Larry Silverstein mean by "Pull It"?

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ashamedamerican

 

I understand, but I just wanted to clarify the thermite issue as it did (in a way) relate to WTC7. But yes, lets stick to topic!

Replace "Shananigans" with "Thermite", and enjoy...
[Yes, I'm totally expecting this post to be removed by the mods for derail, but it was worth a try to lighten the mood ]

reply to post by nyarlathotep


Additional oxidizers in the mix require additional aluminum to generate heat. Thermate would not make as much molten iron per unit weight and molten iron is what would be needed to melt structural steel vertical columns. They are not plated with ballistic armor. All of these devices, whether Thermite or the various thermates, are meant to be placed on top of something and melt down through and are bad choices for verticals. Thermite would provide the most molten metal for this task.
That said, tons of stuff would be needed along with firebrick constructions around each support column. I stand by my earlier statement that timing the collapse would be exceptionally difficult under controlled conditions and the conditions of 9/11 were not controlled. Hence, no thermal devices dropped WTC 7.

reply to post by ashamedamerican


I do not deny "pulling down" a building means to demolish. In direct reference I found it to mean "pulling down" a building with cables, which they did with WTC5 or 6 if I remember correctly. But the only one I found in an indirect reference with explosives and that is the PBS interview but its used in reference to how the building collapses. Not so much as pulling a building = blowing it up with explosives.

and there are firefighters who said they wee pulled from WTC7 and Nigro also mentions firefighter activity till 3. Are they lying or did somebody use incorrect references of time in relation to what happened when. Because I have read a few FDNY quotes that were in fact inside 7 and had been pulled out by order of Nigro.

reply to post by systemic.aberration


lol! Nice one! thanks we needed that!

Originally posted by ashamedamerican

Considering his research has been peer reviewed I would tend to give it some validity.

Nothing he has contributed to 9/11 theories has ever passed a peer review in any respected journal.

He IS published, however. In one, there was ZERO review - all one needs to do to get published in one of these so-called vanity journals is submit a fee.

And I think the only other journal that published him was his own, and his "peers" were guys like Kevin Ryan, who are utterly unqualified to pass judgement on what he's submitting.

Therefore, since what you said is wrong, does the reverse hold true? Namely.that since nothing he has contributed has passed a peer review in a reputable journal, that uses reviewers that are experts in the subject matter, then his writings should NOT be trusted as being factual?

reply to post by ashamedamerican


Your argument takes itself down. Not only did you select the wrong thermal compound to do the job correctly, you haven't explained how tons of Thermite, or even more tons of thermate, firebrick confinements, and the ignition system could be placed around the vertical columns and not be noticed. You have also not explained how thermal methods could be timed to have simultaneous collapse of all columns. This last is the tough part. If this was readily doable, buildings would be demoed this way instead of with explosives.
As a matter of information, the iron oxide used in thermite is black iron oxide. Red iron oxide is rust. Aluminum can come from melted airplane. If the aluminum ignites and burns to aluminum oxide, very high temperatures are possible and steel can melt...much like the Thermite reaction. Molten material seen dripping from the WTC has not been identified as iron, aluminum, glass, or something else.

reply to post by SPreston


Oh yea.. no one is paying attention to that guy carrying a piece of wreckage. OH.. wait.. they are taking a PICTURE OF HIM! Yes, I guess they were paying attention to what he was doing, so much so as to snap a photo.

It's ludicrous in the extreme to think that people could plant that much evidence in the open, and no one would notice. I'd notice. You don't give people nearly enough credit for not being stupid. People are by nature, nosey, and want to know and be involved in any spectacular event. It's their nature.

If someone was carrying dozens of pieces of wreckage onto a lawn and laying them there, yes, I believe many would notice and question this. If people were wiring buildings for demolition, I think people WOULD notice this. I'd notice.

Think about it. You at work. You have a routine, as does your building. You probably recognize workers, their routines, and if even small things get changed, you'd notice. I do. Most people do. People are not nearly as stupid and clueless as you make them out to be.

According to those who believe these theories, not a single human being noticed ANYTHING on ANY site where these disasters occured. Additionaly, not a single person had guilt and reported they were involved, as probably hundreds would have to have been. And I am also staggered by the people that folks say were involved. Everyone from owners of buildings, to the fire department, all our government agencies, etc. All to supposedly kill innocent people, for the sole purpose of having a reason to go to war. When imo, it would have been 100 times easier and less costly to come up with some other fabricated reason to do so. Hell, just look at Iraq. All it took was the idea that they had bits of MD weapons, and bam... we invade.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Let's look at this logically.
If the building was already "primed" for demo and LS knew about it well before, why would the commander call him in the afternoon about WTC7? Why should LS give the order then? (but listening to his own words HE DIDN'T give the order or make the decision. WHO made the decision to "pull" according to his quote?) Why not demo it right after the last tower fell, instead of waiting 7 hours?

Yes, let's look at that scenario logically!

If WTC 7 collapsed shortly after the collapse of WTC 1 could you imagine the MESS that NIST would be in trying to discover a reason for its failure? Imagine the cover story that they would have to invent for them to try and seem credible.

At least with WTC 7 collapsing around seven hours later, NIST had the opportunity to discover 'thermal expansion' as the causal factor in the collapse.

Great logic, GenRadek. Not.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by GenRadek
Griff, if you are using that quote again, please be sure you remember were it came from and what they were talking about:
www.youtube.com...
Stuyvesant High School bomb scare, 5 BLOCKS away from WTC7.
And for God's sake, please listen to the ENTIRE QUOTE.

geeze, another quote with half of it missing. What is with you people and abusing, twisting, editing quotes?

So, my comments to thedman are half missing or abused, twisted or edited? I don't think so. If the school was 5 blocks away from WTC 7 and thedman was in NJ listening to the transmissions, then he would still have heard that transmission.

BTW, don't try and put words in my mouth.

Originally posted by GenRadek
However I find his research a little flawed. The whole sulfur thing is a little preposterous because he doesn't take into account the gypsum from the decaying drywall, nor the oil from the tanks as sources.

Please explain how gypsum "decays" due to heat when drywall is used as a fire barrier.

With respect to thermite "evidence" found, why havent any samples of the steel shown temperatures at or above 4,000F?

I have explained this many times. But here it is again.

Thermate causes steel to melt at a temperature of 1000 C because this eutectic reaction lowers the melting temperature of steel.

The temperature of the steel will never increase above 1000 C until all steel is molten. This can be verified by looking up the same principle with ice. If I apply a 1,000,000 C flame to a block of ice, the ice will remain at a temperature of 0 C until the entire block is molten.

Now, had they found what the temperatures of the melted metals (the ones that NIST denied BTW) and not of the non-molten steel, things may have been different.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ashamedamerican

 

I do not deny "pulling down" a building means to demolish. In direct reference I found it to mean "pulling down" a building with cables, which they did with WTC5 or 6 if I remember correctly. But the only one I found in an indirect reference with explosives and that is the PBS interview but its used in reference to how the building collapses. Not so much as pulling a building = blowing it up with explosives.

The term "pull" while it originated in "pulling down" a building with cables, has been used for so long, and become so common that "pull" is now synonymous with demolish.

Originally posted by GenRadek
If the building wasn't "primed" then how and when could anybody run into the burning WTC7 with "nano/super/solgel-thermite(ate)" paint or charges or whatever and paint/place it on the key beams in record time?

I thought one key column brought it down? Or are you refuting NIST again?

And to answer the question of "why don't demolition companies use thermite to demolish buildings". The answer is:

Thermite can not be used. Nano-thermite in sol-gel can. Now, it get's a little bit more expensive.

Always follow the money trail.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by ashamedamerican

Considering his research has been peer reviewed I would tend to give it some validity.

Nothing he has contributed to 9/11 theories has ever passed a peer review in any respected journal.

He IS published, however. In one, there was ZERO review - all one needs to do to get published in one of these so-called vanity journals is submit a fee.

I don't know where you got your information but that is wrong. Some of his work was peer reviewed and then the people who conducted the review had their credibility attacked. So he resubmitted it to 4 or 5 new people who reviewed it.
So some of his work has actually been peer reviewed multiple times by multiple sources, and passed each time.
Again though this is off topic, this thread is not about Mr. jones or his work or the peer review process.

Originally posted by GenRadek
THERMATE has barium nitrate added to it.
If you can show me where this was found, you may have something.

Let me ask you. Did the report have any chemical listed? Or did they just report the elements that make up the chemicals?

reply to post by pteridine


With all due respect, after your "learn to spell thermite, you should be ashamed" post, where it was clear that I was talking about thermate, I won't be responding to your posts any longer.

Anyone who would 'jump the gun' and try to damn me, when it was obviously your own ignorance of the subject, is not deserving of the time it takes for a response.

Good day to you.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by ashamedamerican]

reply to post by ashamedamerican


What your post really says is that you are unable to respond. You have no answers because you hopped on the thermite/thermate bandwagon without understanding the depth of the problem of shearing verticals, simultaneously, with thermite or thermate. Your solution is to claim personal injury as an excuse not to respond because I impugned your knowledge of demolitions.

The truth is that you have no way of responding. The air has been let out of your conspiracy balloon.

Until you can suggest a more plausible scenario, it must be concluded that your theory of the collapse of WTC#7 is invalid. No collusion was shown and the "Pull it" statment must have meant the rescue or firefighting operation.

reply to post by pteridine


No my misguided little friend.
What I'm telling you is that anyone who would do a 5 second google or wiki search, and think he is now the authority on everything thermite related, then attempt to damn me for my ignorance, when it was clear to others who posted before I even could that it was your own ignorance of the situation, doesn't deserve the time of day.

Next time do more research into what you are talking about, before you insult and belittle others, and maybe someone will want to respond to you.

reply to post by Griff


“Thermate causes steel to melt at a temperature of 1000 C because this eutectic reaction lowers the melting temperature of steel.” ---But only the steel that it directly mixes with.

“The temperature of the steel will never increase above 1000 C until all steel is molten.”
This assumes that none of the melt falls off, that the molten mass is carefully mixed, and that heat transfer is uniform. In actuality, this will not be the case. Mixing will depend on the geometry of the charge/target and heat transfer will not be uniform in any situation.

reply to post by ashamedamerican


Does that mean you have no way of responding to the amount of material required and the improbability of timing the collapse?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Therefore, since what you said is wrong, does the reverse hold true? Namely.that since nothing he has contributed has passed a peer review in a reputable journal, that uses reviewers that are experts in the subject matter, then his writings should NOT be trusted as being factual?

Care to go on record as saying the same thing holds true for NIST?