` (Next day, March 23rd) I've finally gotten started, but I tell you, there's a conspiracy against me writing this! Over the past two days, there have been people interrupting me every time I set aside time to sit down at the computer! (How do they know?) In fact, most recently I have turned on the computer and was in the act of logging into Blogger when there was another knock at my door! That time I finally shooed them away after ten minutes because I wasn't about to be cheated by visitors out of getting started for the third time in eight hours!
` Finally - after technical difficulties have repeatedly erased parts of my progress - I have gotten most of the stuff all the way down to examining the two disparate usages of the word 'pull': You, anonymous commenter, may be especially interested to know in advance that, while 'pull' is used by firefighters and the like it means to 'withdraw and give up', demolition crews use 'pull' to mean literally pulling the building down with cables - not explosives! I have also found a more expanded clip from the PBS documentary that undisputably demonstrates that this is what was meant in your citation!
` As with any conspiracy theory, I think I should make it clear that this latching onto small details and then taking them out of context in order to fit them into the desired point of view is right up there among the most often-used tactics in making an argument. Tomorrow, I shall point the rest of them out!
` It's the next morning and I'm about... oh my God! Another knock at the door! Right now! I'm not making this up!!
` EGADS!!!! Our guest has just spilled a really nasty chemical (don't bother guessing) all over my power supply! I'm not joking at all! I've finally got it dry, but it smells so bad now I have to wear a mask! I say - I've either got to get some walls in this place or send some German Shepherds out to answer the door!
` After a little more progress just before noon, I must report that this is the seventh knock at the door today (I'm not kidding!), and our ploy of pretending to not be home is not working, so Lou is going outside to see what is going on. (The Person At The Door is claiming that his lungs are infested with insects. I'm not kidding about that, either! Good God, the things that go on around here! This is why we're moving!)
` ...Finally! It's finished! Well, for the most part. (I've hit my Prescribed Deadline.) As you can see, I've gone through much turmoil to produce this post, so if you, the commenter, should want to leave another comment for me, I will expect that you read the entire thing before doing so:
` First, let's break your comment down into more manageable chunks:
- ` I have stated before on my blog that I would not doubt that there was molten metal of some kind found at Ground Zero. Why ever not? Molten metal of many types is found in house fires all the time! The question is; was this metal steel? (I'm guessing that much of it could have been another metal constituent of the building such as aluminum because many reports describe it as a silvery color when cooled, which, again, steel isn't.)
- ` First of all, who was it that first reported the molten metal in the basement (referred to as 'steel'), after it was discovered by contractors? This would be Peter Tully, head of Tully Construction, who then called up and told Mark Loizeaux (who says he didn't actually see it himself), and the press.
- ` Was he certain that the metal in question was steel? Well, it's pretty much impossible just by looking; one would need to conduct a test, such as an atomic absorption spectrophotometry test before you have any idea of what a metal actually is. It's standard forensic practice to be certain about this, and that's the reason why!
- ` Unless any test results showing that any of the melted metal really was steel are ever produced (do you know of any?), then it would be very foolish to conclude that these melted metals were actually steel!
- ` As far as other reports of molten 'steel' actually go, they are even more informal, and as for the many pictures and descriptions of 'molten steel' beams being moved and lifted by heavy machinery, this is absurd: If the beams were truly 'molten' and thus liquid or quite soft, then they cannot have been lifted into the air! (As if that isn't obvious!) These beams are clearly only red-hot, which requires a mere temperature of somewhere over 850 degrees Celsius.
- ` I could also mention that plenty of stoners get their stainless steel kitchen knives red-hot over the stove so they can do knife-hits (a poor-man's way of smoking marijuana).
- ` So, if there's no conclusive evidence that any of the melted metal is truly steel, is there any evidence that would suggest it could be? Without even having to invoke explosives, this does sound plausible:
- ` It's perfectly true that the glorified kerosene used in jets does not burn hot enough to melt steel, however this does not have anything to do with how hot the fuel - namely, the building itself - can burn, as accelerants burn off very quickly and contribute very little to the total amount of material that has been consumed in a fire, as well as its highest temperatures.
- ` Indeed, carpets, desks, and various synthetic materials can easily burn far hotter than mere jet fuel. After all, the jet fuel was merely acting as an accelerant - the building itself was the fuel. Firefighters may see not only copper and aluminum melted in house fires, but truly melted steel as well, as discovered in a simple burned mattress (where the mattress innards were the only fuel).
- ` On top of that, the idea of actual molten steel seems most plausibly to have been found in the basement because enclosed spaces such as basements (while there sometimes may not be enough oxygen for a fire), could also instead result in much hotter fires than otherwise. Here - you can even read all about what Building Research Establishment has to say on the matter!
- ` In any case, as far as I can tell there is no direct evidence of steel beams melting into a liquid form; only steel beams that are warped and glowing from the heat as well as evidence of what appears to be melting metal, which could be anything!
- ` 'Scuse me... but as far as I know, the police and fire departments were well-aware that the buildings were soon to collapse, and that this posed a danger to Giuliani! I am surprised at this accusation, as, as far as I've gathered from reading articles, it was the fire department who warned him!
- -Building 7 collapses at nearly free fall speed (about 7 seconds--free fall speed for bldg. that height is about 6 seconds) which defies laws of gravity unless all significant points of structual resistance to the collapse were removed by controlled demolition charges. The reason the towers didn't fall at nearly free fall speed is because their demolition was top-down, not bottom-up like Building 7. Footage of their collapse confirms this.
` Neither of the WTC towers collapsed like this - towers 1 and 2 were weakened gradually, the warped steel beams slowly disarticulating and protruding from the outer walls like broken guitar strings, until finally the tops of the buildings collapsed onto the impact points, tilting slightly, the slamming of this great weight thus triggering the nearly disarticulated sections to completely fall apart.
` As far as this video goes, the captions are utterly nonsensical! It even says that pieces of a building cannot crash through the floors below it faster than they fall through air, and of course it didn't have to; the gutted south side of WTC 7 was a gaping hole of fire and smoke already weakened by heat and debris that had been thrown from the toppling remains of WTC 1. It didn't need much coaxing.
` Unsurprisingly, this video does not contain any good footage of the utterly destroyed south side - the side that conspiracy theorists don't show very good pictures of, and I discovered, one actually tried to pass off pictures of its north side as the south side!
` There is far more information about the matter in this in-depth analysis of the WTC collapses as viewed by actual demolitions experts. It explains many things:
` The fact that the failure point of the buildings (as I explained a little above) is clearly at the points of the most damage. (Watch those WTC videos carefully!) The buildings also do not fall into their own footprint - they follow the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of it! (Please read!) As the buildings began to fall, debris was thrown out to the sides because the floors above were crushing them flat - quite unlike what happens when there are squibs used.
` Because of this, concrete and air was blowing all the walls and windows out as they were crushed under the incredible weight; the sides of the building were the path of least resistance for this amount of pressure. In other words, these 'explosions' were not due to explosives (it was quite what one would expect from such a collapse), and the seismic readings taken at the site confirm this.
` As for the assumption that steel buildings do not collapse due to fire, this is ridiculous, because it happens all the time! In fact, the WTC buildings that fell were dealt a different-yet-tremendous amount of damage, which is why they fell in their own specific ways.
` There is no confirmed molten steel (or thermite, for that matter) found at Ground Zero, nor cut beams or any other evidence of any kind of explosives being involved. As for the supposed covering up of such evidence, the whereabouts of the debris is clearly documented and the time frame in which they were shipped to China is perfectly typical of any other case.
` As far as your next claim goes about the meanings of the term 'pull it', let's get one thing perfectly straight - according to, once again, this article:
'We have never, ever heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers. etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure onto its side for further dismantlement.'` Not only this, but the PBS special that you claim is proof of this term relating to explosives also demonstrates that pulling a building over with cables is in fact what they were doing! So, where does this leave Larry Silverstein (who has no authority over the building being destroyed)? As you said:
` You may have already heard that firefighters (as well as police and military) use the term 'pull' to indicate that they are withdrawing or giving up. (As in 'pulling your men'.) So, to anyone who knows that, they merely see that Silverstein is describing how the fire is getting worse and worse, and then they decided to give up on the building because it was a hopeless case so they stood back and watched it fall.
` As I've said, your interpretation of this video clip is way off!
` If you had actually taken the time to watch the PBS special, you would have seen the next scene, which completely blows this assertion to bits. This is, conspicuously edited out of Conspiracy Believer versions of the video because after Luis Menendez from the Department of Design and Construction is shown describing how concerned he is about where Building 6 will fall, we see the same guy whose voice can be heard saying 'we're about to pull building six' in your clip, and he is describing how they are attaching cables to it and are planning to pull it down with heavy machinery in a specific direction!
` So, it's safe to say you can't deny that unless you're very creative. This whole 'pull' thing based on a TV documentary is through-and-through a gross misinterpretation of two video clips taken out of context!
-BBC reports Building 7 (Salomon Brothers building) has collapsed due to fire damage weakening the building BEFORE it actually collapsed, showing that the perpetrators scripted the collapse for the media by preparing an explanation for the collapse to avoid any unfavorable speculation in the immediate aftermath. As you will see, they got it out too early. (Forward this clip to 14:45 to see the report. The comments added highlight the blunder.)
-confirmation that the Salomon Brothers building is Building 7
-emergency workers instructing bystanders to get back because Building 7 is "coming down soon" and is "about to blow up"- ` I suppose there is no trying to tell you that the BBC was simply misinformed in the confusion or made a gross error. It happens, you know. (This reminds me of the mistake of news reports of a completely different incident and how this influenced the 'psychic readings' of a famous fraud.)
- ` As for the video of the emergency workers telling people to get back because the building is 'coming down soon' and is 'about to blow up', what reason is there to assume that they are referring to explosives? In the heat of the moment especially, people's descriptions of things can get a bit imprecise and dramatic. If you saw a house burning down and it was about to collapse, (as the retreating firefighters knew would happen ten minutes or so beforehand to WTC 7), could you see yourself using these terms?
- ` People use words like 'explode' and 'blow up' all the time to describe all sorts of things (including emotions), even down to the most mundane things such as a pot boiling over. Why could they not have been using these words to help motivate bystanders to get well out of the way so that they wouldn't be hit by flying debris?
To get a better idea of how all these pieces fit into the puzzle, I recommend watching the two videos below and checking out the online journals below. The videos provide more in-depth explanations and also show how 9/11 was not the only time and place that false-flag terrorist operations have been carried out. The journal shows some of the scientific work that has been done to expose the official story as a fraud.
documentary on World Trade Center controlled demolition
` It's my compromise between figuring stuff out for myself, giving myself three-day deadlines and having a really unpredictable guest rate in a one-room apartment (thankfully, our visitor this time was only needing to get into his apartment through our window). All I have to say is that the video you cite is very cleverly edited, however no amount of clever editing can change reality.
` For example, unlike the message implied by the documentary, you can hear for yourself that the WTC building experts do not actually say that there is any discrepancy between what really did happen and what they expected to happen with a Boeing 767 charging into the buildings at a high speed (and not a smaller plane flying 'slow and low', regardless of fuel content): If you listen carefully you will hear that their comments are merely cleverly-chosen selections from the documentary interviews construed in such a way that it sounds as if they think the idea of these planes felling the buildings doesn't make sense.
` (Of course, they don't believe that at all - some were in fact surprised that the buildings kept standing as long as they did.. This sneaky manipulation of an innocent interview reminds me of what happened to poor David Albert in a very different kind of documentary.)
` Same with the 'two isolated pockets of fire' thing... yes, on the 78th floor, there was not much in the way of fires. However, think about it; who is gullible enough to think that the fires were isolated to one story of the building while they are watching fire and smoke pouring out of several floors? It is the 83rd floor that the fires were worst. Again, snatching in on an isolated detail to color the whole picture!
` It's just so ludicrous, I find it odd how anyone could not catch these tactics which are obviously used to distort information in one's favor. As I only have five more minutes until my Prescribed Deadline (a previous engagement, actually) is in effect, I'm afraid I don't have any time to go over these last two links at all.
` I may, however, eventually do just that if you, nameless commenter, have read this entire article and have something to say about what I've written in response. If I then reply to your remaining two items, I will probably also suggest that you, um, I don't know, read the entire article by the very director of actual experienced demolitions experts involved on the site. You know... just to tide you over until I'm done with that response!
` ...And if you will please refrain from sending eccentric individuals to my door all hours of the day, I would appreciate it! ;) ...Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints!! Another knock! Seriously!!! (I guess I wasn't in time with that!) And people wonder why I like spending so much time by myself....
` Note: March 24, 11:24 A.M. - I sincerely apologize for the fact that my comments have been disabled this entire time; I have no recollection of how this has happened, and it has never happened in any blog post I've ever written before:
` At first I thought there was something wrong with my internet browser, so I switched browsers, but that didn't work, so I changed the comment settings on the entire blog and then changed them back. That didn't work.
` I puzzled about this for a bit, and over the fact that this post was the only one with disabled comments. Then, I dimly remembered that in each post there are individual comment settings (which I've never used before), so I went to 'Edit Post' and sure enough they were turned off. I am not aware of messing with these things, so I think that perhaps, because my computer was screwing up a lot while I was writing this post, that the settings got changed somehow.
` So, if the person I am responding to has tried to comment and found that they couldn't, now they can know why!
Posts
Please view these clips and videos and check out the website that follows. The following clips prove that a criminal network within our government/private sector was responsible for the collapse of the three World Center buildings on 9/11 and consequently the death of thousands. The only way for us to assure that we do not fall prey to another government-sponsored terror attack is to make the truth behind 9/11 known all throughout the country and recognized all throughout the media. The traitorous perpetrators of 9/11 would be deterred from carrying out another scheme of mass deception for fear that it would trigger the country to revolt against the government, rather than bring the country together like 9/11 did. So please share this with others and press for the truth to be recognized for the sake of our security and sanity.
-molten steel spewing out the side of tower, which could only be produced by an incendiary device containing an ingredient like thermate/thermite since jet fuel does not burn hot enough (around 800 degrees C) to melt steel (around 1300 degrees C)
-an example of what thermate/thermite does to steel which is usually used to weld or cut steel
-firefighters describing molten steel as lava-like at ground zero
-cleanup team finds hot steel glowing red and orange all over ground zero