What Did He Really Say? - a survey

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Ok but what does it mean coming from Silverstein? Last I checked the man was a real estate owner and developer. Not a firefighter or emergency responder. All I'm saying is an interview with FDNY personnel (who were there when the order was being decided on and put out) would hold more weight with me. That would be considered firsthand information.

The point here is not really to see if someone said the word "it" or not. The point here is to investigate the nature of the collapse of the building with one side saying it was done intentionally. If that's the case, wouldn't you want to hear it from emergency responders, and officers, not real estate developers?

Just a personal preferences. I like my stories firsthand, and I like them coming from people who "know" as opposed to people who "speculate". But that's just me.

[edit on 5-12-2005 by Djarums]



dh

posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Oh, No, not another Silverstein "pull" thread.


but what did Siverstein really say?

Listen to the actual statement and tell me which of the following transcripts is correct?
(what do you hear)


My version
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull.' And they made that decision to pull and instead we watched the building collapse."


The Whatreallyhappened version:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Note the addition of one word and the deletion of the other.


Which one do you think is correct?



[edit on 11-5-2005 by HowardRoark]


To go back to the leader of this thread, the important thing is the allegation that the word 'instead' is in there.
Has anyone heard that word anywhere
Was this supposed to be a subliminal suggestion?
Was anyone fooled?
The topic hasn't arisen again

[edit on 12-5-2005 by dh]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   
For crying out loud people, you can see latteral ejection from the squibs placed in the towers as it collapses. Check the thread I linked to earlier and read through it. The WTC complex didn't collapse, it was demolished. Textbook demolition.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   
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 building.

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."
www.wtc7.net...

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]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:02 AM
link   

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.


You are the first person who seems to comprehend this point. However, you should also try to comprehend the fact that in FDNY terminology (which is indeed the frequency the transmission in question went over) the first definition is the proper one.

They simply do not use the term in your latter definition. Facts are facts.

The statement in question was by FDNY staff. They do NOT use the term to refer to demolition, they use it to refer to clearing the scene.



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
How low do you have to go to stoop to insults in every post you make?


I'll probably get in trouble for this, but just for you Howard...




posted on May, 14 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Which just proves my point.



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Which just proves my point.


Wow! Howard, you are so incredibly perceptive...


But lack a sense of humor...How typicaly brainwashed.



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   
You have to admit I am right. You can't let a post go by without slipping an insult in, can you.



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
LOL... Howard your thread is insulting, to more than just my intelligence.

Unless of course you are pulling our left legs, then maybe you do have a sense of humour after all?...



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
For crying out loud people, you can see latteral ejection from the squibs placed in the towers as it collapses. Check the thread I linked to earlier and read through it. The WTC complex didn't collapse, it was demolished. Textbook demolition.




The interiors of the buildings collapsed first, one floor on top of the other, that's the whole reason the buildings came down anyway. The outward explosion you see at the base is absolutely not demo charges, that's just silly, it just a result of the fact that the interiors of some buildings collapse more quickly than the exteriors which causes everything else to fall in around it.

Oh, and like someone else said, I don't get the difference between "pull" and "pull it." The "it" seems to just be a reference to the operation, as in get out, and not some demo order. Besides if there really was the massive cover up conspiracy including literally thousands of firemen, policemen, port authority, administrators, and politicians....Why would someone be talking about blowing the charges in a documentary?

[edit on 14-5-2005 by Arcanum919]



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Arcanum read this thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Then tell me what I don't know about the collapse, k?



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Arcanum read this thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Then tell me what I don't know about the collapse, k?


Not sure I understand. I read that other thread as well as this one and I'n not exactly sure how to reply to you. It's a simple matter of the facts as to how the buildings collapsed and I was stating that. The windows being blown out below what you can see as collapsing/exploding are a result of the interior floors cascading downward ahead of the exterior of the building.

I don't really pay much of the other conspiracy stuff about 9/11 much mind. I guess you can argue this point if you want to, as well as everything else, but I'm not really going to join you. There's certainly alot we don't know about the attack but the demolition theory implies a conspiracy that would be of such a gross size that it just isn't possible. Not to mention the fact that I have yet to read or see a piece of evidence that at all supported the idea.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Well i can hear "Pull It"

However it DOES NOT MATTER.

Clearly WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition, if you think otherwise your just plain ignorant, you should notice the first part of the building to collapse is the Penthouse on the top of the building, NO FIRE HAS EVER DESTROYED A STEEL BUILDING!



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
Clearly WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition, if you think otherwise your just plain ignorant,


WHat about the hundreds, even thousands of structural engineers and architects that have studied the collapse. Are they "just plain ignorant," or they are they so chicken bleep that they won't come forward? Show me one professional engineer that has studied the collapse that thinks it was a demolition?


you should notice the first part of the building to collapse is the Penthouse on the top of the building,


Which tells us where the structural failure first started, but it offers no support for the controlled demolition theory.*


NO FIRE HAS EVER DESTROYED A STEEL BUILDING!


Well aside from the fact that generalization is totally wrong (fire has destroyed many buildings, steel or otherwise), it is also pointless in many other ways.



  1. To state that just because no steel structure has ever totally collapsed in a fire is like saying no one named Wilson has ever won the lottery, therefore it is impossible for anyone named Wilson to ever win the lottery.

  2. There have been many, many cases where fire has caused a partial collapse of a building. WTC 6 for one. The windsor tower in madrid is another, The Meridian tower fire in Philadelphia, and many others also suffered partial collapses. The original McCormick place in Chicago also collapsed due to fire. But because it was not a high rise, this is generally ignored.

  3. Due to the site constraint of being built over a large pre-existing electrical substation, WTC 7 had an unusual and unique structural design which was unlike any other building that has been involved in a large fire, so there is really no other building fire that you could compare it to.

  4. Several other buildings suffered partial collapses around the WTC towers that day, were they all also damaged through "controlled demolition"?

  5. There is credible evidence that WTC 7 was severely damaged by debris from the tower collapse. It is impossible to rule out the effect of this damage in contributing to the collapse.





    *pun intended



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Howard why are you beating this subject to death?? It has been discussed too many times to count. Most people here have proved you wrong... so just admit that he said Pull it.

That is the only point of this thread, isn't it??? That is the title of the thread. And as I suspected 90+ percent of people who replied were correct as he did indeed for the last time say PULL IT.

All I want is for you to admit that he said pull it..... everyone else knows what he said, yet you are too blind to see it.

*beats Howard with a dead horse



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   

yet you are too blind to see it


too blind to hear what he said?


I personally hear pull-it.

Whether Mr. Silverstein said 'pullll' or 'pull-it' is basically irrelevant though because, as Djarums said, he wasn't a fireman and therefore mightn't have had a clue about what the term actually meant. And even if he did he would have heard it from a fireman and to a fireman the term does not mean demolish the building.

As for the conspiracy, why would a real estate developer have been involved? let alone allowed to give an interview where, according to some, he blatently admits that the towers were pulled down? if someone is clever enough to fool the world into thinking that the attacks were terrorism do you think they are going to have told some Joe Bloggs developer?



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
As for the conspiracy, why would a real estate developer have been involved?


Umm.. Silverstein owned the world trade center.

Although he's still fighting in court for some of the money, I believe he's collected no less than 4 billion dollars in insurance payments. (3.5 billion dollar terrorist policy. He's been fighting to recieve twice that, claiming that seperate planes equal two seperate terrorist attacks.)

Plus, he aquired the property just 7 weeks before 9/11.

If there's a conspiracy, you can be sure his hands are not clean.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Umm.. Silverstein owned the world trade center.


And therefore what?

Since when does the FDNY take orders from people who own the property where there's a fire?

Sorry, but on any emergency I've ever responded to we never made a habit of asking "Hi, do you mind if I shred your car door with the jaws" or "Hello, is it ok if I use this nice tool to bust your front door down?"

And, to anyone following "real" news on this matter, you'll find that Larry is not getting even half the cash he wanted, so consider the humor in the fact that your saying this guy was involved in the biggest setup in world history yet he can't get arbitrators to side with him on insurance claims. That's actually hysterical to even consider.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
WHat about the hundreds, even thousands of structural engineers and architects that have studied the collapse.

Just exactly what did these guys study Roark? The scrap was hauled off under extreme security before any real investigation could be conducted. The only steel that was examined was hand picked by FEMA. That in itself is criminal destruction of evidence. The only ones to really examine the scene was FEMA, who was ordered into New York on 9-10 btw, and FEMA was shown to be full of # on several counts. NORAD doesn't stand down for nothing, yet for the first time in history, NORAD doesn't know what they were doing this particular morning? They knew the planes were off course, they knew they had been Hijacked, and even after the first planes slammed into the WTC, they did nothing, for hours? Firefighters reported explosions, not loud bangs, or heavy thuds, explosions. Odd they were not allowed to testify before the 9-11 comittee. An unprecedented power down in the towers the weekend before 9-11, the security company owned by Marvin Bush pulled the bomb sniffing dogs out of the building that weekend, I guess that was just a cooincidence... We had prior warnings from seven different countries and intelligence agencies, including our own FBI, several higher ups in the gov. were told not to fly, or avoided using civilian air travel, Condiliar Rice actually called Mayor Willie Brown and told him not to fly that day. I wonder why. I also wonder why all the radios and cell phones went dead about the same time the explosions were reported, and just before the collapses... and for the first time in history, fires cause the collapses, perfect footprint collapses, of three steel framed buildings, all in one day...Yeah. Never mind the squibs that subsequently vanished from google search queries that you can clearly see going off in sequence ahead of each collapse, and never mind the warning received by Israeli employees that worked there. Not to mention the list of terrorists released by our gov., most of which turned out to be either alive and well in another country or dead many years before. Don't worry about the guy who wired 100,000 bucks to Atta who was meeting with Intelligence Committee members that morning, I'm sure he here on important business. Pay no attention to the fact that CIA agents were meeting Osama Bin Laden himself in an american hospital in Dubai just weeks before 9-11, or the fact that we turned down the Taliban's offers of his extradition later. And so on and so forth.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join