How was the WTC 6 pulled?

That's why I said I was torn. I would think it would be easier to have men on cranes place cables on the outside columns first...pull them down and then whatever is left do the same thing. That way they wouldn't have to enter the building. But, from the photos/video it looks like they didn't do it in parts. Like I said, I'm still torn on this.

They don't just pull on the columns, the have to weaken them first by cutting/drilling them. Dangerous work compared to placing charges.

We're all understanding clearly that Silverstein is not a construction worker, firefighter, demolitions expert, or anything but a property owner... right?

So his use of terminology is still subject of so much scrutiny?

Interesting.

OK...wasn't sure if they actually had to go in and weaken the columns. Maybe I should look into this kind of demolition futher...I think I will. I'm assumming then that they would have to shore the floors either way? Or could the get away with not shoring to just place explosives? I'll do a little research and see if I can find out.

I've been looking things up. I found that the Murrah Building (Oaklahoma City Bombing) was imploded using explosives. These structures could be comparable. Both were damaged. Both were 6-8 stories (I believe). Now why would the same company hired to demolish these two buildings use two different mothods of demolition? You might say that WTC6 had to clear other adjacent buildings, but so did the Murrah building (the attached garage). Now, you would think "pulling" the Murrah building down would actually be more effective to clear the garage but they decided to implode instead. WTC6 didn't have any attachment that they wanted to save, so why would they pull that building and not the Murrah Building? Just some thoughts.

This is kind of interesting.



Source: www.buildingdemolisher.com...

Parts bolded by me.

First bolded: Comes in all sorts of forms. Notice the plastics. Could that be were the 1,3-diphenylpropane came from?

Second bolded: Notice it says without many people even noticing in urban areas. So, there goes the theory that everyone miles around would have heard the earsplitting explosions on 9/11.

Third bolded: Not much explosives need to be used when placed strategically. So much for the thousands of pounds of explosives. If it takes about 200 lbs. for a 22 story building, that is only 5 times more for WTC towers...making it only 1000 lbs....which I believe could have been done every 35 or so floors if need be...making it less. Plus all the hype (the photo that is always used showing a floor of some building with massive amounts of explosives and detonation cord) then goes out the window. Remember it said "small amount of detonation cord". Hmmm...very interesting.

Sorry to take this off topic of WTC6 but thought I'd share what I've found so far. Still looking for the "pulling" type of demolition to see what is involved in that.

1,3-diphenylpropane is also a byproduct of Aerogel/Solgel... synthetic materials used to shape nano-thermate charges.



I have alwyas expounded that once the collapse initiated, you would not be able to hear jack # over the noise of the sirens, alarms, yelling, falling debris, etc. Assuming that the charges were not huge.



You and I have talked about this all along... just adds creedence to the idea that a small team and a small amount of explosive/incendary aluminothermics could bring the buildings down TOP DOWN quite easily.

Nice work Griff... WATS for you.

Because in THIS case, if you don't drop it EXACTLY, or you use too big a charge you blow the slurry wall, and the river floods into the area. You don't just slap charges onto or into pillars in a controlled demo. You have to do cutting, and do test charges, and all sorts of other tests first. This HAD to be done EXACTLY right or they flood the area, and have all sorts of other major problems.

Why is this discussion based around a few pictures and a link to 911myths?

Wouldn't it be a good idea to find what people who were there that day had to say?

Maybe find some sort of records or interviews about what happened?

Seems like a better use of time than looking at a picture and then speculating.

It's kind of like showing one picture from a football game and then trying figure out who won. Youd be better off checking the score.

Off topc What are you doing here Zap?

I agree, but wouldn't pulling the building be less controlled than imploding with explosives? Serious question. I'm still trying to find information about the pull method....I'm the worst googler ever I think.

BTW, Slap Nuts..thanks for the WATS....I only googled a little....more people deserve it than me...like you of course. Cheers Zaphod and Slap Nuts for keeping this discussion interesting.

Because with explosives you have more risk. You have to do test charges, and all sorts of other things, and you have shockwaves being transmitted to the slurry wall. If you pull with cables you don't have to do the test charges, and risk an accident, and you don't have the shocks to the wall, that was already pretty significantly damaged.

Kuhl, I leave this afternoon. My bus heads out to the terminal at 615.

[edit on 9/19/2006 by Zaphod58]

I see what you are saying Zaphod. I wasn't thinking about blast shock to the slurry walls. Cheers and good luck in your new job. Hope you'll still be around.

I cant see any flames that would naturally appear from an explosion and what difference does it make if the the builders/demolition squad DID actually fit explosives to then help with removing the building.

i love when people get naked like zaphod, here.

very hot.

okay, here's my take(off my clothes):

incindiaries have no blast wave. cutting charges can be specifically metered so that the cut is all that happens. afterall, there is no need to go overkill with the bombs.
a falling building stresses the ground, so, the slurry wall consideration is a quantifiable, predictable thing, which they obviously measured before 'pulling' the plug.
the building stood for long enough to know that it was going to collapse if someone set foot in it. it was sound enough to enter (even if entering was an act of heroism).
looks like a typical controlled demo, ie., instant. being pulled by cables would be a slower acceleration, i figger, and less straightdownedness.

great demolition info, griff.

just a 1000 lbs. of charges would take down the big ones(WTC1 and WTC 2), eh? that's 15 guys carrying 66.6 lbs. each, (assume radio detonators, and you have on eQUICK demo job).

Well there you go. All those controlled demolition guys are doing it ALL WRONG then! They should just go by what you say here and do it RIGHT. I mean hey, they're only EXPERTS who have been doing this for their entire LIVES in some cases.

huh?
so, you have some testimony that they used cables, then?

and, again, huh? holy non-sequitor.

There's no evidence they DIDN'T except some tiny little gif images where you can't see the cables, because it was taken from god knows how far away. But to use explosives they would have had to test blast, and do other things that there's no evidence they did, or they would have risked doing.

Yet another post full of faulty logic...

Then why does EVERY CD company talk about cutting pillars and test blasting and all that. Oh sorry, I forgot that people on ATS know everything about everything and how STUPID CD engineers are. You guys have a good time patting yourselves on the back at doing a great job at chasing off someone who thinks differently than you do. So long and have a nice life.