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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8bitagent


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.



WTF are you talking about?

What "fortifications?"





[edit on 24-6-2005 by HowardRoark]




posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marid Audran

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.


snake eyed bitch is too good for her.
there, now you don't have to listen to me, either.

if einstein said it, would that compromise the theory of relativity?

in other words, you're critical thinking skills are sadly compromised by emotional bias. real arguments have nothing to do with decorum. they are cold and information based, not warm and fuzzy.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
SportyMB
you missed the point....
if all he ment was get the Fudge out then why not say so?
He was asked about the comment by a reporter trying to whitewash the issue, why not feed into the reporters hands? why not say, "I ment pull the people in the building out"? instead he refuses to answer.
re-read the origional post.

This is because Silverstein is a Lawyer, and he understands the ramifications of lying, especially when it comes to receiving billions of dollars of insurance money.

So, his remarks constituted his own insurance policy against the possibility of insurance fraud if ever the insurance co. were to investigate.

Therefore, the reason you hear silence on the part of Silverstein, after all.. the last thing he wants to do is define what he had exactly meant, since it would bring into jeopardy the insurance policy


SMR

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Some people need it spelled out.............

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

So, looks like it wasnt the fire commander who suggested it, but good ole' Larry himself! and then they granted that wish by Larry.

Now this is where it gets REAL good:

How did everybody know the building was about to collapse since the fire commander ordered firefighters away from the WTC 7 at 11:30 am—seven hours before it collapsed—so why would the firefighters need to be pulled out when the firefighters were never in the building to fight the fires in the first place?

"...the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.
It appears that the sprinklers may not have been effective due to the limited water on site and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.
WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY. -FEMA: WTC Building Performance Study, Chp 5 (05/02)


So, he meant ( which we dont know since he declined to explain what he really meant ) PULL them out, even though they werent even in there in the first place to PULL OUT? How does that make sence.

Larry Silverstein - " Hey! get those guys outta there!"
Fire Commander - "Nobody is in there sir"
Larry Silverstein - " Get them out anyway!"




posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   
One cannot see what people think. Anyone would get careful with answers if one understand that the questioner asks leading questions, or loaded questions.

About the imagined 'explosion(s)' in the lower levels;
such towering buildings sway just by wind. Now there suddenly enters a 707 trugh a wall. What effect does this have? It has already been mentioned that there would be vibrations and stress throughout the building. And it would even sway more than normal.
This extreme swayings would put the walls under extreme stress too and the walls would crack many places. This wall-cracking is not soundless. It sound like explosion and this is why people belived there was explosions. But there were none. Not only walls, but also trees exposed to extreme cold weather can snap... and that too sound like an explosion. To claim there was an explosion in the towers is as saying there's a group of people traveling the cold parts in the world, placing explosives in trees...

Look at the films. The floors above the crash is all on fire and we see black smoke coming out. This is how fire works; it climbs up.
But the floors below the crash is all clear. Because it's not on fire.
CNN zoomed in on one of the crash site and we there could see people walking around. There did not apear to be any emergency or hurry to get out of the building. Crashes often look worse than they actually are, so at the time, for all we knew, there was no worry. For all we know, the terrorists might have had time to get out of the towers and escape.

The people who were burned must have come from the upper levels, taking an elevator down or something. The fuel from the plane cannot have filled more than a few floors and it could not have burned for more than 5 minutes. According to FEMA, wich I have no reason to doubt on this.
The 'smoke' coming out of first floor is not smoke but dust. The walls are all cracking up, remember? With loud bangs and alot of dust and powder.
When the topmost and burned out floors of the towers collapsed, this created even more strain on the walls at the bottom of the building, generating the extreme dustclouds just before the rest of the building collapsed. So the twin towers collapsed in two stages; first the burning top levels swayed so much it collapsed, and then the rest fell too.

The machine shop mentioned might just have moved out and thus of course the place would be empty. No mystery

But building '7' obvious collapsed from the bottom up.

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Ghaele]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
there was an interview with a fireman in NY city.... someone here at ATS posted a great thread about it.... I can't find it...

"pull it" is a term used by firemen, when the decision has been made to evacuate the building and let it burn, becuase its coming down that way..

not to demolish a building using explosives...


for god sakes gett off it already!!!!!!!!!!!!


SMR

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Cracking walls sound like explosions? Snapping tree's sound like explosions?
We had a pepper tree snap and hit our roof many years ago that had a 5ft base.It split right down the middle as one of the branches was too old and heavy.The tree was about 50ft give or take tall.This was a very large tree.
We heard it snap and then hit the roof.It did not sound like an explosion.It sounded like wood snapping.

Your analogy isnt very good at debunking the sounds they heard.
I am quite sure anyone can distinguish the difference in sound between cracking walls and large explosions.


SMR

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
there was an interview with a fireman in NY city.... someone here at ATS posted a great thread about it.... I can't find it...

"pull it" is a term used by firemen, when the decision has been made to evacuate the building and let it burn, becuase its coming down that way..

not to demolish a building using explosives...


for god sakes gett off it already!!!!!!!!!!!!


Some of you guys refuse to read posts.You just stick to your agenda and post away


Did you happen to read what I posted above? I take it you did not.
Maybe you should and then edit your post.
There were no firemen to PULL OUT the fire commander ordered firefighters away from the WTC 7 at 11:30 am—seven hours before it collapsed.

GET IT!!

Again, PULL IT is NOT a term used by firefighters.Go to any fire station and ask what term they use.I guarantee you will be told something other than PULL IT
They use PULL OUT

[edit on 27-6-2005 by SMR]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   


Again, PULL IT is NOT a term used by firefighters.Go to any fire station and ask what term they use.I guarantee you will be told something other than PULL IT

Didn't larry say "pull it"? Maybe he said "it" instead of "out" because he did not know otherwise...afterall, he's not a fireman.

Also, If this guy realy knew for sure that the towers were rigged with explosives, then would'nt he be shot dead by now? I mean surely the Gov't would not let him do interviews and all that other stuff.......and sometimes not answering is the same as a confession....they would not let a man like this go around with that knowledge.

Like I posted earlier, a conspiracy of this magnitude would not be at the city fire department level....and the command to level the place would not come from larry or a fire chief.

Maybe oneday we'll know for sure...



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
and sometimes not answering is the same as a confession


you said it buddy!!!
why will he not clear it up?
why does he refuse to answer?
killing sliverstein is pointless, if he were to 'rat' them out it would mean his a$$ goes to jail. It's called insurance fraud.

As for the cracking of concrete, I don't think so. Aside from the horizontal floor slabs there was no concrete in the building. I could see some stress in vertical walls of concrete being cracked but there were none.

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Halfofone]


SMR

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
The thing is, it all go's back to 'pull it' being that it was going to be taken down.
Regardless if he knew what term to use, he did not mean to remove firefighters.How do we know this? Because as I posted above, there were no firefighters in the building to begin with.
That is why I posted:


Larry Silverstein - " Hey! get those guys outta there!"
Fire Commander - "Nobody is in there sir"
Larry Silverstein - " Get them out anyway!"


Why would he mean to pull them out, if they arent in there in the first place?
We clearly see in his own words:


'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it!' Uh, and they made that decision to pull

So when he said "maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it" and they made that decision to pull" what did they 'PULL' ?
It couldnt have been firefighters since they werent there.What was pulled?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
So when he said "maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it" and they made that decision to pull" what did they 'PULL' ?
It couldnt have been firefighters since they werent there.What was pulled?

I tell ya now.....thats one hell of a problem.....if the firemen were not in the building then what the hell were they pulling???

Can we get Larry here on ATS to clear up this little dispute...


ed: removed quote of entire previous post

[edit on 27-6-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]


dh

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
There is no dispute really - its all hair-picking
The meaning is clear as is the whole operation
The countersigners are only peering at their own rectums
Silversteins message is loud and clear


dh

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by 8bitagent

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.

WTF are you talking about?

What "fortifications?"



Well, I'll always pay attention to you, Howard, if the rest ignore you
We refer to the command bunker The Mayors exclusive pitch and control for the Show

ed to fix BB quote code

[edit on 27-6-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Interview with Chief of Safety New Yotk Fire Department Albert Terry, by Pat Dawson, Terry's theory is that there were devises planted that went off after the initial impact


From Page 2 Pdf Format Re-Open 911


The Case Of WTC 6

CNN broadcast the image of smoke rising up from street level near the base of building 6. The Customs House. The video footage had originated at 9:04; about one minute after United 175 struck the South Tower. Remember that WTC 6 was on the north side of the north tower, so any explosions there cannot be regarded as having been generated by the impact to the South Tower.

A powerful explosion inside WTC 6 had hurled a cloud of gas and debris 170 meter high. A CNN archivist commented, “We can’t figure it out.”
The incident was soon eclipsed by the collapse of the South Tower, and has tended to be forgotten. The various official reports have had precious little to say about the WTC 6. Overhead views of the ruins later showed a large crater in the steel structure of WTC 6: it was clear that this crater could not have been caused by fire. ( Von Bulow 163-164 )

From Page 6 Pdf format Re-Open 911



[edit on 27/6/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Again, mighty conveinent only Mr. Silverstein's buildings fell that day. It's like a real life 'magic bullet' theory, especially if ya think about how WTC 7 fell.

The facts are extremely clear:
*pull it means to demolish with explosives. There is no debate on this.
*Silverstein's heavy handed way of stating this on the documentary
is consistent with someone having to make a big big decision. Pulling men out of a building would not cause such a heavy expressive sorrow.
*Only Silverstein's owned buildings went down that day
*Marvin Bush, Bush' younger brother, was head of security at WTC 7, tho his contract ended on 9/11. WTC 7 housed CIA, secret service, mayoral control and command center, etc.
*photos from every single side of WTC 7 show only a few actual fires.
*The WTC 7 fell just 7 hours after the WTC1&2 fell

I am not going to say WTC1&2 were brought down by explosives. The gutwrenching footage of WTC1&2 shows a mass of black decomposure eroding away at the sides, suggesting a plane impact was eating away at the foundation as goes the official story. Tho, the fact people were standing in the impact zone, coupled with firefighter's accounts, etc cast some doub. There is NO doubt however, that WTC 7 was brought down by implosion.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   
discounting what someone said just because "in your opinion" their cultural lifestyle isnt what you "agree" with...

hes not hurting anyone using descriptive words; he shouldnt cuss becuse its agianst the TOC ... he should put a few @%^ in there to censor it
dont want him 2 get in trouble


but still... look at it this way
your thinking of yourself as superior to another person
based on his culture's language

thats far more ignorant than cussing, in my opinion

you should judge someones message by its content and its point; not by its packaging
be reasonable



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Did anyone see the interview with the policeman just after WTC 1 collapsed.

They asked him if he heard a collapse or an explosion and after much thinking he came out and said.....It sounded like an explosion.

We have this same report from firemen also with secondary devices.....

It most def. points in the direction of an explosion. No doubt about it....

Oh and has EVERYONE forgotten the Zogby poll....when over 50% of new yorkers want 9/11 re-investigated. Now if everyone was so confident that fires brought down all 4 buildings that day.....1, 2, 7 & 6. Then why re-investigate the case................................WHY???

BECAUSE The Bushes, Bin-ladens, Larry silverstein, Mayor of new york and countless others were in on it. Case closed.

[edit on 28/6/05 by Hunting Veritas]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

quote: Originally posted by HowardRoark

Firemen use the term “pull” all the time. They don’t use it to mean the deliberate demolition of a building.


I didn't want to hijack HR's thread over here
HR's NIST Thread so I'll post the question here where it is on topic.



Please, please, please provide some evidence that firemen use the term all the time.

Not just your word but some evidence.

I have family members as well as many friends who are firefighters throughout New Jersey "paid firemen" not volunteers" and who have been in service a minimum of 15 years and not one that I have asked has said yes that the term "pull it" is often used, if ever.

I have also been conducting an interview experiment throughout the NJ, NY area where I have contacted individual fire companies and asked if this term is used in their industry. Guess what? They all said no.

I have also contacted companies on the west coast just incase it was native to a particular area of the country and the reply is the same, an astounding no!

So please be a sport and tell me where you get your information.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8bitagent


The facts are extremely clear:
*pull it means to demolish with explosives. There is no debate on this.
*
*
*

*
*



that 'pull it' term might? mean to employ/use explosives

because in the DVD movie "7 seconds[/]" with Wesley Snipes,
the band of armored truck robbers were clearly told to 'pull it'
during the first 4 minutes of the flick...

alas, the plasticke explosive put on the rear door of the armored truck
turned out to be only silly putty...so, no breaching the armored trucks'
valuable contents- - and because of the faux pas, the would-be heisters
were left only with dreams of the loot.

could it be? there is a subliminal rewriting of the historical record happening here?
! "pull it" ! or even ! "pull- out" ! seems to be dangling, as it is all based on memory...the more-than-likely 'faulty' memories of people caught up in
the drama of the moment !!

just thought it was a synchronicity that i just watched that '7 second' movie
& read this thread - - just immediately in the present - -
and the "pull it" phrase was something used in the movie, & this thread



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join