It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Silverstein Responds to "pull it" comment, kind of...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
For the first time since the controversial statements were made, Silverstein has commented on the issue of what he really meant by ‘pull it’ (or ‘pull’ if you prefer). However I am afraid that it will raise even more questions and conjecture.

An article in the NY post 9/11 Ad by Loon Tycoon written by Sam Smith attempts to whitewash ads taken out by millionaire Jimmy Walters, questioning the events of and surrounding 9/11. One of these ads discussed the WTC7 building ‘demolition’ issue and Smith asked Silverstein about it.

Silverstein told Smith, that he "meant something else" by the "pull it" comment but did not, and would not elaborate any further.

Smith however did not include the comments in the article, and in a phone interview with thought crime news, Smith said the comment was not related to the story.

The question has always been if he did not mean to demolish the building what then did he mean?
But the new question is why will he not asnwer that question? Why does he refuse to? It seems that he is not comfortable with the line of questioning even if asked by someone who is trying to whitewash and downplay the issue.
If all he ment by it was to pull out the firemen in the area (as some have suggested), then why not say so? There is no shame in wanting to save lives. IMO he doesn't want to lie, but he can't tell the truth. He is caught between morals and self preservation.




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
so even the right-wing pundits know "Pull it" is to demolish a building.
And thats why it was not included in his story, white wash is right,
it's only a matter of time



Snip~
I first explained to Smith that if he talked to people in the construction industry, he would understand that to “pull” a building is to professionally demolish it. He responded that he had never heard that before (presumably before Walter had brought it up) and that Silverstein’s people had explained that this was not what he meant by the remark. Smith did not explain to me how Silverstein’s spokesperson understood the expression “pull it”.

I then pointed out that Smith’s story did not feature Silverstein’s now infamous quote:

“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.”

Why, I asked, did he not include the quote in his story and let the reader understand what all the fuss was about and decide for themselves what they thought Silverstein meant. Smith replied “I didn’t feel it was crucial to the story.”




Silverstein "Pull it" .

On a PBS documentary video released in Sept. 2002, the WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein is shown saying that a fire department commander tells him that the fire in the WTC 7 might not be able to be contained and Silverstein recommends to the commander that maybe the smartest decision to make to avoid risking any more lives is to "pull it". Right afterwards, Silverstein says the decision was made to "pull" and then they all watched the building collapse...






[edit on 23/6/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
he really cleared that debate up! HAHAHA!
what a nincompoop.

i can't believe how lame that is, silverstein. go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect a gazillion dollars.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Halfofone nice find........

Why didn't he just say it was to pull the firemen out.......???


as billybob put it:

Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $500m in profits.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   
So if you buy 7 famous tall buildings, and six weeks later they all somehow go down(tho NONE of the Silverstein building go down) and on top of that ya somehow remember to take out a multi billion dollar insurance on em a couple weeks before...well, it's a little bit odd.

Isnt it convenient how Fahrenheit 9/11 never talks about WTC 7, Silverstein, fireman's claims of hearing explosive devices in WTC1&2, etc?



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8bitagent
So if you buy 7 famous tall buildings, and six weeks later they all somehow go down(tho NONE of the Silverstein building go down) and on top of that ya somehow remember to take out a multi billion dollar insurance on em a couple weeks before...well, it's a little bit odd.

Isnt it convenient how Fahrenheit 9/11 never talks about WTC 7, Silverstein, fireman's claims of hearing explosive devices in WTC1&2, etc?


We all know what "Pull It" ment.

as for Fahrenheit 9/11 we all know that waste of life Michael Moore is an idiot.

Altho I have it admit it may have got some people thinking, but that documentary like many of his others are half ass truths.

And before anyone thrashes me about that comment about Moore, search ATS there have been a few threads debunking all of his Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   


The question has always been if he did not mean to demolish the building what then did he mean?

This has been said before, but Im gonna say it again,
Pull is a term used in the military, law enforcement, SWAT and the fire fighting community. It means to fall back, pull out or GTFO (pronounced git-fo, meaning get the fudge out).

Sense the command came from a fire department commander I would not the least surprised that his meaning was for people to GTFO. I mean it was obvious that the buidling was ready to fall and many rescue workers have already died inside the building.

And for those that believ he said "pull it".
IT is a pronoun ya know, used to replace a noun. So instead of saying "pull the team out" or "pull out of the operation" or "pull out of the building" or any combination thereof, it is easier and more efficient to just say "pull it"....

Why in the hell would a "fire department commander" be involved or have prior knowledge of such an event if it were scheduled? If there were actual explosives prestaged in the WTC's...why would a fire department commander know of this? Why would he be the one with the authority to give the command and OK the destruction and downfall of the WTC's?
Seems like such an act would be way above the fire department level, way above the city government level. Ya know.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
Why in the hell would a "fire department commander" be involved or have prior knowledge of such an event if it were scheduled? If there were actual explosives prestaged in the WTC's...why would a fire department commander know of this? Why would he be the one with the authority to give the command and OK the destruction and downfall of the WTC's?
Seems like such an act would be way above the fire department level, way above the city government level. Ya know.


Prob the same reasoning that bush saw the 1st plane crash into the 1st tower on 9/11..

Its not like these people are rocket scientists or something, they are idiots on a string of something bigger. They did have a tendancy to let some things slip out.

[edit on 6/23/2005 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
Why in the hell would a "fire department commander" be involved or have prior knowledge of such an event if it were scheduled? If there were actual explosives prestaged in the WTC's...why would a fire department commander know of this? Why would he be the one with the authority to give the command and OK the destruction and downfall of the WTC's?
Seems like such an act would be way above the fire department level, way above the city government level. Ya know.


just because you have questions, does not mean you have answers, grasshopper.
seems like such an act would be a 'conspiracy', which is a secret group of people who 'conspire' to visit misfortune on their fellow man.

you must ask yourself the same question, "why would silverstein be telling the fire chief what to do, and why does he know fireman jargon?"

FEMA knew. why shouldn't the fire chief or silverstein know as well?



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

Prob the same reasoning that bush saw the 1st plane crash into the 1st tower on 9/11..

He did? I thought he was in a school when it happaned.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
you must ask yourself the same question, "why would silverstein be telling the fire chief what to do, and why does he know fireman jargon?"

FEMA knew. why shouldn't the fire chief or silverstein know as well?

Wow, is that he best you've got? Im seriously trying to understand this..ok. Just like yourself....Im by far NOT an expert on 9/11 conspiracies.

I could be a potential believer of your "theory" and here you are not even able to answer my questions. The only semi-amswer you have provided is "it's a conspiracy...misfortune mankind bla bla"

Can you provide some links or something to support your claim that FEMA knew?

I don't know why silverstein would tell the chiefy what to do......do you? and can you back it up?. And the Jargon is not limited to only fireman.....
anyone with a law enforcment, fire or military background may have heard the term "pull".....this also supports the reason why he MAY have said
"pull IT"....because of his lack of expierence using the term....maybe he heard the term before and tried to use it.

Note: I do not think he said IT after the "pull"....I answered just for the hell of it.....but even if he did say "it"....that would explain it....get it?

[edit on 24/6/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
This has been said before, but Im gonna say it again,
Pull is a term used in the military, law enforcement, SWAT and the fire fighting community. It means to fall back, pull out or GTFO (pronounced git-fo, meaning get the fudge out).

Sense the command came from a fire department commander I would not the least surprised that his meaning was for people to GTFO. I mean it was obvious that the buidling was ready to fall and many rescue workers have already died inside the building.

And for those that believ he said "pull it".
IT is a pronoun ya know, used to replace a noun. So instead of saying "pull the team out" or "pull out of the operation" or "pull out of the building" or any combination thereof, it is easier and more efficient to just say "pull it"....

Why in the hell would a "fire department commander" be involved or have prior knowledge of such an event if it were scheduled? If there were actual explosives prestaged in the WTC's...why would a fire department commander know of this? Why would he be the one with the authority to give the command and OK the destruction and downfall of the WTC's?
Seems like such an act would be way above the fire department level, way above the city government level. Ya know.


Ok, supose it was used in that context then why oh why didn't he just say it in the interview it would not be difficult and he would not be in the hot seat..................Maybe silverstein was lying all along and he didn't speak to any fire commanders that day... perhaps he spoke to the FEMA demolition experts.....he couldn't say (obviously) else people would have smelled a rat. as if we don't already

so 2 questions:

1. How did a fire start in the first place?

2. Why didn't the sprinkler system work? Remember we're talking about one of the most secret agencies of all time (CIA/SS) and they didn't have an expensive sprinkler system, much like the pentagon and its many, many CCTV cameras, where are they?

There are far too many wholes in the official FEMA report and on top of that why was all the 'evidence' shipped to china for scrap without investigation.

In fact why has there been no other independent investigation since the FEMA report....................Let me give you a hint.....FEMA & the CIA was in on it.

Also how do you explain alot of the "suposed" hi-jackers alive and working??

When questions like this need to be answered I don't think it matters too much what he said. That fact is "something" brought those buildings down and it was not fire, maybe partly fire but I find it extremly difficult to think fire alone brought them down 1,2 & 7.

peace


[edit on 24/6/05 by Hunting Veritas]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

Prob the same reasoning that bush saw the 1st plane crash into the 1st tower on 9/11..

He did? I thought he was in a school when it happaned.


Well that's what's puzzling me to... He was in a classroom, yet the first images of the first plane crashing into the first tower didn't air till 15 hours later(the French brothers making a docu about NY firefighters were teh only ones who captured this occasion on film), yet Bush (on 2 different occasions) talks about "seeing the first plane fly into the tower and thinking "man that's a bad pilot"

Makes you wonder what channel he was watching...so perhaps, Bush was watching an unknown video from some communications network that had anticipated the 'surprise' attack...

Listen to it here: Bush describes first plane fly into towers

Edit: sorry people if this is slighty diverting from the original topic, but i feel it's all related.


[edit on 24-6-2005 by XyZeR]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Nice link, I never knew that. It does make you think.
But maybe he was just saying that he saw it, but wasn't being serious. I mean, if you were the president of a country and saw a plane crash into one of your landmarks, would you say "That's a bad pilot"?



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   
actually thats what i thought when i heard on the news a plane hit the WTC

a stupid drunk pilot....
honestly i even laughed because i automatically remembered the Empire State building incident back in the day

i didnt think it was a huge deal at all....

then the second one hit on TV and i freaked out like WTF 2 in a row thats Impossible!!!!!

i automatically knew something was up

and i regret laughing because when the 2 buildings came down i was like "NO WAY A PLANE CAN DO THAT ITS IMPOSSIBLE!!!"
i was HORRIFIED

and now i see all this really good circumstancial evidence and im like
dude its a cover up

anyone with half a brain should be able to recognize that

if you dont think it was a cover up im sorry your too brainwashed for us to help you...

theres just too much evidence pointing towards a cover up
everyones blowing this thing outta the water

this whole silverstein thing is just another step on the ladder

you guys are awesome
i love you ATS guys so much!!!
LOL

i dont think we are at the "Truth" yet but we are getting so much closer

thank all of you!



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
here is a ats talk about Alex Jones Martail Law Documentary.

It goes into Detail about this silverstein crap..

Also you might Find some interesting facts about this WTC 7 gig..

Like the Verizon building and that Hotel Next to the WTC 1 and 2 get srverely damaged yet didnt fall..

Anyway here is the link watch the video and state what you think..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

He also gets into the part where Silverstien says "Pull It" in that Documentary America Rebuilds or something..

I saw the 1st 2/3's of this havent seen the last part. but all and all its a good look.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB

Wow, is that he best you've got? Im seriously trying to understand this..ok. Just like yourself....Im by far NOT an expert on 9/11 conspiracies.

I could be a potential believer of your "theory" and here you are not even able to answer my questions. The only semi-amswer you have provided is "it's a conspiracy...misfortune mankind bla bla"

Can you provide some links or something to support your claim that FEMA knew?

I don't know why silverstein would tell the chiefy what to do......do you? and can you back it up?. And the Jargon is not limited to only fireman.....
anyone with a law enforcment, fire or military background may have heard the term "pull".....this also supports the reason why he MAY have said
"pull IT"....because of his lack of expierence using the term....maybe he heard the term before and tried to use it.


the links to FEMA's foreknowledge are everywhere. particularly revealing is one FEMA man interviewed on the eleventh who says, "we arrived monday night, and started immediately".

here's a search for you to re, www.google.com...

people are still here telling us what he meant(pull the emergency teams out) even though HE HIMSELF wouldn't clarify it. that's what started this thread. he wouldn't say what he meant. i guess he talked to his lawyer.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Remember Condi, that snake eyed bitch, this is the broad who said they did not expect terrorists to use commuter jets as weapons,

she was right in a way, it was not terrorists it was the American Government.



As reported on Pacifica on May 17, 2002,
Snip~

Condolezza Rice stated on CNN that she warned Willie Brown not to board an airpline on 9/11/01 some 8 hours before he was scheduled to fly.
Link
Link 2



For what ever it's worth.

Odigo


Snip~

Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers
received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September
11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been
cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the
FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the
messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's
management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services,
which brought in the FBI.

"I have no idea why the message was sent to these two workers, who don't
know the sender. It may just have been someone who was joking and turned
out they accidentally got it right. And I don't know if our information
was useful in any of the arrests the FBI has made," said Macover. Odigo
is a U.S.-based company whose headquarters are in New York, with offices
in Herzliya.

As an instant messaging service, Odigo users are not limited to sending
messages only to people on their "buddy" list, as is the case with ICQ,
the other well-known Israeli instant messaging application.
Link this link is now dead?


Odigo


Snip~

The instant messaging service "Odigo", says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.
Link





Marvin Bush
911dossier notes 25.1.2003:

Snip~

For those who do not accept the Official Story on the collapse of the Twin Towers, this article is a minor smoking gun. It explains their biggest problem: if the Towers were brought down with explosives how could anyone get them in. Step in Marvin Bush whose company installed the security system...
Link





9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush
Snip~



Marvin P. Bush, the president?s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Bush also served. [Utne]

According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."
Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider.

The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards.

The Dulles Internation contract is another matter. Dulles is regarded as "absolutely a sensitive airport," according to security consultant Wayne Black, head of a Florida-based security firm, due to its location, size, and the number of international carriers it serves.

Black has not heard of Stratesec, but responds that for one company to handle security for both airports and airlines is somewhat unusual. It is also delicate for a security firm serving international facilities to be so interlinked with a foreign-owned company: "Somebody knew somebody," he suggested, or the contract would have been more closely scrutinized.

As Black points out, "when you [a company] have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." And if another company is linked with the security company, then "What's on your computer is on their computer." [American Reporter] Link




Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United Link



From the Chief Engineer magazine and reports of eyewitness account of the moments after the first plane crash describing evidence of large explosions
in the lobby, parking garage and subbasement levels of WTC-1 at the time of the crash.




First-hand Accounts of Underground Explosions In The North Tower
Snip~





Stationary Engineer Mike Pecoraro follow the link to read his account that day

Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion.
The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

There was nothing there but rubble, Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ! "gone!"

They decided to ascend two more levels to the building?s lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled uplike a piece of aluminum foil? and lying on the floor. "They got us again", Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993.

Consider the implications of what Mr. Pecoraro describes
Snip~

At this point the only overt damage to the building was the plane crash some 95 floors above, which could not have caused violent explosions underground. Since the towers were anchored at the base to the bedrock the shaking caused by the crash would have been greatest close to the crash site, getting progressively weaker as it approached the rigid attachment at the bottom.

Yet the underground damage he describes can not have been the result of a mere shaking - nothing short of an explosion could reduce the contents of a machine shop to rubble.
Link


New York Firefighters Telling of 911 Controlled Demolition Windows media 0:29 sec.

Or Silverstein Pull it mp3





Video linkSquibs along southwest corner of WTC-7
The above clip is taken from this longer video of the WTC-7 collapse, which itself is a small segment of the Naudet brothers' documentary "9/11" , (with enlargement and cropping by Webfairy):

Link






Letsroll911 Bittorrent -Torrents Services ( 911, Movies)




Painful Deceptions, here is the free movie

”Unanswered Questions” Painful Deceptions DVD part 1 (Windows media 4.3 megs)

”Seator Mark Dayton Exposes Coverup” Painful DVD Deceptions Part 2 (wmv 1.6 megs)

”News (Propaganda) Reports” Painful Deception DVD Part 3 (wmv 3.7 megs)

”The Pentagon” Painful Deceptions DVD Part 4 (wmv 2.6 megs)

”AA Flight 77” Painful Deceptions DVD Part 5 (wmv 2.2 megs)

”Pentagon Scraps” Painful Deceptions DVD Part 6 (wmv 3.6 megs)

“Global Hawks - What really hit the Pentagon”” Painful Deceptions DVD part 7 (wmv 3.6 megs)

”Building 7” Painful Deceptions DVD Part 8a (wmv 3.0 megs)

”Building 7” continued – Silverstein confesses” Painful Deceptions DVD Part 8b (wmv 3.0 mrgs)

”The Towers” Painful Deceptions DVD Part 9 (wmv 2.1 megs)

”The Collapse” Painful Deceptions DVD Part 10 (wmv 5.7 megs)

produced by Jimmy Walter and ReOpen911.org



And From the US Government

FEMA - World Trade Center Building Performance Study

The 9/11 Commission Report Pdf format 585 pages


[edit on 24/6/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB


The question has always been if he did not mean to demolish the building what then did he mean?

This has been said before, but Im gonna say it again,
Pull is a term used in the military, law enforcement, SWAT and the fire fighting community. It means to fall back, pull out or GTFO (pronounced git-fo, meaning get the fudge out).



Have you seen the footage from different angles? That is one pretty conveinetly neat freefall, several hours after barely getting any debris...especially from an overly fortitfied building. Also, he would not have said 'pull it', with such a heavy weight in his face or tone when he says it in the interview if he didnt mean to bring it down. I think it is in the realm of fantasy to suggest he would seem resigned in the interview at saying 'get everyone out'. Why did all the other non Silverstein buildings continute to stand, and still stand today in the area, especially the ones right next to the WTC main towers? Why did Silverstein purchase the towers just a few weeks before 9/11? Taking out insurance right before the events? And why did Bush's brother Marvin, head of WTC 7 security, contract end on 9/11?

How come on the CBS documentary 9/11 which takes place with firefighters during 9/11 itself, talk about how they thought there were explosions in the main towers as if it wasnt anything surprising?

The no people on the planes/no plane hitting the pentagon/missles used stuff is total BS. This stuff detracts from the real coverup I believe is going on.
What I find plausible is that if someday, unrefutable evidence comes out to show the public that the US had a hand, or at the least unmistakable complicity in 9/11 people will finally begin to realize the realm of conspiracy is now undeniable soul crushing truth.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
Remember Condi, that snake eyed bitch, this is the broad who said they did


Is that appropriate language? It doesn't help your argument at all and reading that automatically made me discount everything else in your post.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join