For the record, i hear 'PULL IT' without any question.
Why couldn't he be giving the order to the firemen to 'pull out' so they could safetly 'pull' the building without killing firemen?
It seems like people are fighting over the term 'pull' which means 'leave a building' and also means 'demolish a building', depending on who
your talking to, why couldn't the term be used in both ways in this example?
Obviously he didn't want to lose anymore 'innocent lives' so he told the firemen to pull out and then shortly after, they demolished the
Silverstein made a lot of money from the WTC collapse and wasn't building 7 government headquarters?
"At the time of its destruction, it exclusively housed government agencies and financial institutions. It contained offices of the IRS, Secret
Service, and SEC."
I think it makes sense in both context.
Get the firemen out because we're going to pull the building.
The building came down in a way that is familar with controlled demolision, as did the twin towers.
I don't see why governments wouldn't have demolision devices in their buildings?
To be able to bring the towers down, for example, in a controlled way is much better than letting them fall at random in the case of a disaster. If
those towers toppled over, the damage would be much worse than it was. It actually make sense to wire such a huge building so it can be brought down
in case of an emergancy.
If anything i think someone abused this precaution measure and brought them down to early, maybe bad communication from those involved, who knows.
We've got firemen on video talking about bombs going off in the buildings, it makes sense to be able to bring these buildings down quickly and
'neatly', we know Silverstein made A LOT of money from them coming down.
The buildings fell in the wrong order, the second building hit, came down first when most of the fuel was burnt on the outside.
Also, if the WTC buildings didn't come down, do you think people would still care about 9/11 this much? If the NY skyline wasn't changed, the
buildings would be fixed by now and there would be NO SCAR.
I think it's plausable that they brought these buildings down. It leaves a scar, it's has much more 'shock and awe' to it, those involved made a
lot of money, and in the case of WTC 7, it destroyed a government building which some suggest were headquaters for operations on that day.
Because the Twin Towers came down to early, killed way more firemen etc than they were suppose too, i can't imagine the government ever admitting to
being able to pull these buildings, regardless or not if the intentions of pulling the building down were for 'less destruction' because of public
reaction but i think it's highly plausable that they did bring those buildings down to maximise the 'shock and awe' being shown live around the
world and to leave a scar by forever changing the NY skyline so people can't forget about 9/11 in 5 years when those floors have been rebuilt.
[edit on 13-5-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]