What did Larry Silverstein mean by "Pull It"?

reply to post by ashamedamerican


You said "Research how thermate is employed rather than traditional demolition methods and you will get your answer."

Being so dismissive, you should be Ashamed not even knowing how Thermite is spelled, much less its limitations. Thermite is a favorite fall-back position of the ignorant when the laser death rays are debunked. Militarily, Thermite is usually in 50 pound charges with a fuse igniter. They are usually just used as destruction charges in sensitive areas. Place one on top of what you want destroyed and ignite it. When one goes off, all that happens is a kind of a woosh as the aluminum reduces the iron oxide to molten iron. Nearby things get hot and in a small closed room, you would burn, but there is not any bang; it's the flowing molten metal that does the destruction, not radiant heat. Note the word "flowing." Gravity is important because the hot metal flows downward. Cutting vertical columns presents a bit of a problem because you have to make enough and keep it from wandering away while it does it's work. This is really the hard way to cut verticals. Another thing you have to think about is the insulation around the columns, such as concrete. This makes it more difficult to contact the molten iron with the steel you want to melt before it cools and solidifies. The amount of thermite necessary depends on the thermal mass of the cross-section of column you want to melt by the height of the melt. Say you have a ton or so of thermite [40-50 satchels] in place around each main column have built coffer-dams around them to keep the molten metal in place. Now you need longer fuses or electric igniters to set these off so your crew can leave the building. Assume that you have arranged in advance for such and can set them off at will. Now you have a problem with timing. Not timing the ignition but timing the drop. If the columns, charges, and coffer dams are not identical, heat flows will vary and it will not drop simultaneously. This is one reason why buildings are not demoed with thermite; there is no control on heat flow and melt rates.

Now that you know a lot more than you did before, I will paraphrase your advice to me and advise you: "Find out how to spell Thermite. Learn something about how it is employed and you find that your arguments are not at all convincing to anyone who does know about it."

reply to post by Kratos1220


It has been mentioned and also largely ignored of what was happening in the rubble afterwards with respect to chemistry. It has already been said that when steel rusts, it actually heats up. A large enough pile of steel or iron rusting does heat up and even burn if conditions are proper. When you heat iron or steel, it rusts quicker. This is a fact. Pouring seawater on hot steel also produces hydrogen which can then react with the steel and be corrosive. This is all basic chemistry and I wonder why so many people don't even bother investigating this and even looking into this.
The only place I found that mentions this and makes a very good argument is here:
www.debunking911.com...

Originally posted by pteridine
Now that you know a lot more than you did before, I will paraphrase your advice to me and advise you: "Find out how to spell Thermite. Learn something about how it is employed and you find that your arguments are not at all convincing to anyone who does know about it."

Before, you go ragging on how someone spells something, perhaps you should look up if the word exists. In this case it does:

Thermate is a variation of thermite and is an incendiary pyrotechnic composition that can generate short bursts of exceedingly high temperatures focused on a small area for a short period of time. It is used primarily in incendiary grenades.

Taken from:

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
reply to post by ashamedamerican

 

That doesn't really answer my question, but that's OK. I guess I was trying to play devil's advocate by asking why wouldn't demolition companies employ the same method that brought down WTC7, if it was indeed thermate.

It just seems like a lot of work for demo companies to spend a couple of months preparing a building for demolition if all they can do is use thermate charges without all of the prep work.

It also seems like alot of work for demo companies to spend a couple of months preparing a building for demolition if they could just start a couple fires and watch it fall into it's footprint with minimal collateral damage, does it not?

You would agree that WTC7 did not have the traditional prep work done that demo companies do to bring down buildings, right?

It obviously required prep work, however I don't believe they used "traditional" methods no. Traditional methods require too much prep work, due to the fact that the older style of charges are not as effective as thermate.
Why all demolition companies don't use thermate is something I can not answer. I don't claim to know everything. However I would be willing to bet some of them are probably updating their practices since 9/11.

I can however explain why all demolition companies don't use fire to bring down steel frame skyscrapers, because it's not physically possible. So why people believe that on 9/11 three buildings fell due to fires is way beyond me.

reply to post by ashamedamerican


But since Larry was talking to the FDNY Chief, since when do they do demolition with secret "nano/super/solgel-thermite"?
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?

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?

reply to post by nyarlathotep


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

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ashamedamerican

 

Were these the red chips he was talking about?

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.

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

[edit on 12/13/2008 by GenRadek]

The red chips, if I'm not mistaken are, unreacted thermate.
He has also found the chemical signature of thermate in samples of the wreckage from both towers and WTC 7.
As for your question about why he "doesn't take into account the gypsum from the decaying drywall, nor the oil from the tanks as sources" I would have to direct your question to him.

Check out the microspheres taken from dust samples before the cleanup started, those are a smoking gun of temperatures much higher than what was supposed to have taken place at any of the sites, as well as the pools of molten metal, which also point to thermate.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ashamedamerican

 

You said "Research how thermate is employed rather than traditional demolition methods and you will get your answer."

Being so dismissive, you should be Ashamed not even knowing how Thermite is spelled, much less its limitations...

...Now that you know a lot more than you did before, I will paraphrase your advice to me and advise you: "Find out how to spell Thermite. Learn something about how it is employed and you find that your arguments are not at all convincing to anyone who does know about it."

I do know how to spell thermite, but I was talking about THERMATE which is a specific patented type of thermite. Before you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, research this rather than doing a Google or Wiki search and ASSUMING that you know what you are talking about.

Edit: Now could you tell me again, which one of us should be ashamed?
I have done my homework, maybe you should also before you take it upon yourself to attempt to belittle and insult others.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by ashamedamerican]

reply to post by ashamedamerican


You are completely missing my point, so nevermind. Not a one line post.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Kratos1220

 

It has been mentioned and also largely ignored of what was happening in the rubble afterwards with respect to chemistry. It has already been said that when steel rusts, it actually heats up. A large enough pile of steel or iron rusting does heat up and even burn if conditions are proper.

Are you suggesting that the rubble from the buildings turned itself into pools of molten metal because it was rusting?

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ashamedamerican

 

But since Larry was talking to the FDNY Chief, since when do they do demolition with secret "nano/super/solgel-thermite"?
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?

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?

The buildings had to have been already prepped before the morning of 9/11. Why did the fire commander call him? Why did Silverstein make that comment? Who knows, maybe the fire chief didn't even call him, there are alot of unanswered questions, and I'm not claiming to have the answer to them all.
I'm not the 'akashic record' or some great oracle who has every answer.
When liars and guilty people are confronted with questions, they often make ridiculous statements that often incriminate themselves. Why do they do this? I'm not a psychologist, and would suggest you ask one.

However it is painfully obvious given the evidence that he DID make that comment, and that when he said "it" he was referring to the building.
Rather than flaming me for every comment I have made, why don't you take that time to go investigate this for yourself, I'm sure you will see after researching it that he did mean the building when he said "it"

reply to post by ashamedamerican


He mentioned that one side of the chip has aluminum oxide and the other has iron oxide. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this "layered" chip is not thermite/ate whatever. In order for thermite to be thermite, it has to be mixed together properly.

As for the spheres,I did a little more research into it and the elements he discovered and claims to be evidence for thermite/ate/whatever, are actually more commonly found in garbage incinerators known as "fly ash". All of the alleged elements Prof Jones found are closer related to fly ash than thermite. With the amount of stuff burning in all three towers plus the smaller buildings, there was plenty of material to create these same elements in the ratios he describes. More info on this can be found here:
www.modernmicroscopy.com...

It would appear Prof Jones has once again ignored some key facts and did not bother to look into alternate, more rational origins of the spheres and such in the debris. After all, the fires were just like giant incinerators and smoldering in the pile for days and weeks would create similar if not, same type of leftovers and dust. You can check from his own pages of the elements he has and compare them to the elements commonly found in fly ash and even the "spheres" in the dust.

reply to post by ashamedamerican


Excellent research. I often wondered about the validity of the "Pull It" argument, and you have just shown that it was more than just a phrase taken out of context by us conspiracy nuts.

If only Alex Jones and the Truth movement were so well informed...

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
reply to post by ashamedamerican

 

You are completely missing my point, so nevermind. Not a one line post.

I apologize if I didn't quite understand your question or give it the attention it deserved. Some people woke up this morning and decided to do a google or wiki search and have decided that the paragraph they read somehow proves to be the magic bullet to take down my arguement.
I am not referring to you when I say this either, I'm talking about the "learn how to spell thermite, you should be ashamed" type of comments.

So please feel free to re-word your question to clarify, or at least point out what I'm missing the point of, and I will be happy to try my best to answer it.
I'm juggling multiple conversations at the moment, or else I would go back and search for your post myself.

reply to post by ashamedamerican


As a matter of fact, speaking from a chemistry stand point: yes. If you would care to look into it yourself I posted the page on it that goes further into and it would be best since I don't want to waste space here, but to be fair: nobody has discovered what the actual molten "stuff" really was. Nobody took a sample or picture or even video.And lets be honest here: steel melts above 2700F.
What human being can walk into an oven like that and survive if there is molten steel inside where the workers were? And this is not like in a steel mill because there is a source of heat to keep the steel molten in the large buckets. Here there was no "external source" of heat to keep steel in this state for so long. Thermite can't do it either. However if you truely are interested in trying to answer this question, don't ignore alternate and more "mundane" explanations that don't delve into conspiracy.

reply to post by GenRadek


I'm not claiming to know everything about the research Mr. Jones has done. Considering his research has been peer reviewed I would tend to give it some validity. However I would also suggest that if you have a question about, or problem with, his research that you direct it to him and not me.

This thread is not about him or his research, it is not about thermate, or "red chips", or microspheres, or methods of demolition, it is about Larry Silverstein and his "pull it" comment, remember?

While I will try to address questions about these things, keep in mind that is not what this thread is about. I would prefer not to derail this thread into a discussion of everything 9/11 related. Yes I have made comments about these things too, but we are getting so far off topic it's not even funny, and as I said I would prefer not to derail this thread into a discussion of everything BUT the Silverstein comment.

reply to post by ashamedamerican


I have researched this quote for quite a while now. Here is what I gather.
1) He gets a call from the FDNY Commander
2) He mentions that there has been a terrible loss of life. He says this AFTER the fire commander said they can't save the building.
3) Going by his exact words and I quote: "And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Larry did NOT make any decisions to pull anything.
4) So after the fire commander says they cannot contain the fire that must mean there was an attempt to fight the fires and firefighters were inside and around WTC7. LS says in effect he doesn't want any more lives lost, so it may be smart to just "pull it".
Debate all you want on what he may have meant by it, but in this context he is clearly referring to pulling the firefighting operation out.

Also a quote from Richard Bacinski:

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ashamedamerican

 

As a matter of fact, speaking from a chemistry stand point: yes. If you would care to look into it yourself I posted the page on it that goes further into and it would be best since I don't want to waste space here, but to be fair: nobody has discovered what the actual molten "stuff" really was. Nobody took a sample or picture or even video.And lets be honest here: steel melts above 2700F.
What human being can walk into an oven like that and survive if there is molten steel inside where the workers were?

And this is not like in a steel mill because there is a source of heat to keep the steel molten in the large buckets. Here there was no "external source" of heat to keep steel in this state for so long. Thermite can't do it either. However if you truely are interested in trying to answer this question, don't ignore alternate and more "mundane" explanations that don't delve into conspiracy.

I have looked into why there was molten metal and such high temperatures for so long.
I have seen many theories on this, and have only found one that actually made sense, and could be rationally explained.
The Steven Jones theory of unreacted thermate makes the most sense, and seems to be the only logical explanation why this could happen.

Without getting into too much detail (because I am about to walk out the door to run some errands) it proposes that some unreacted thermate (possibly from charges that did not ignite) ended up in the rubble, which was settling. The left over molten metal from the charges that DID ignite could have, over time as the rubble settled, ignited this unreacted thermate keeping the temperatues high for long periods of time.
Keep in mind the molten metal pouring out of the side of the tower which has been caught on video, this is also pointing towards thermate.

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!

reply to post by GenRadek


Take a look at my original post, and the information provided there.
There were no firefighters in the building.

I didn't say HE made the decision, and this thread is about what was meant by the "pull it" comment.
Look at the information provided, and you will see it is clear that he meant the building by "it" and wasn't referring to the firefighters (who weren't even in the building) as "it"