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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:16 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




posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
! "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 !!



Memory? You're joking right?

Have you watched the video? If not please do. Here it is.

fyleserva.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Nevermind. Good thread.


Edit again...

I do find it infinitely hilarious the person that probably gained the most money from this, shot himself in the foot. And by doing so has compromised the whole thing. I guess you don't have to be too smart to be a Billionaire.



[edit on 7-6-2005 by ShadowHasNoSource]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   
I wonder if the Insurance company would open an investigation if presented with enough evidence. It would be very satisfying to "Pull" Silverstein's 7 Billion dollars. And in return for saving the company $7 Billion we can ask they put together a monetary care package for the survivors and the families.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
HR, I didn't want it to appear that I am hijacking your NIST report thread so you can answer the question here where it is on topic.

Again, Thanks

www.abovetopsecret.com...



www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


There was also another thread where this got discussed quite a bit and a few ATSer's went over to the firehouse.com forums and asked there. You can well imagine what the response from the firement was.


Feel free to register over there and ask them yourself.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
www.abovetopsecret.com...



www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


There was also another thread where this got discussed quite a bit and a few ATSer's went over to the firehouse.com forums and asked there. You can well imagine what the response from the firement was.


Feel free to register over there and ask them yourself.



OK so then your mouth is moving but you don't know what your saying.

I did not ask you to waste more of my valuable time as you have done with so many other readers. I didn't ask to be sent on a wild chase looking for your answer.
I asked "you" to show me evidence of firemen using the term "pull' and you have not.

Another failed attempt at diversion.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Repost. . .
Like many occupations, fire fighters have a distinct and definite language that they use to communicate with each other. Since they are involved in a deadly occupation it is imperative that they all share the same definition for commonly used terms.

To the NYFD, the term pull is just a shorthand for pulling back and letting a fire burn.


This is a fairly common term among fire fighters. Here are some typical examples of its use:

Source

H-1 threatened by fire. Firefighters pull back. Crewman on helicopter recon dropped off.



Source

He was only able to direct water on the fire for a few seconds before the rest of his fire party (with no SCBA) called for him to pull back.



Source

During an initial attack yesterday, I heard on the radio from the first
engine on scene that they were getting spots behind them and that they
had to pull back until additional units arrived on scene to help protect
them. pull back is good. Doing nothing is bad.


Source

The fire, still growing in intensity, moved rapidly up the hollow, and the CL gave the order, by radio, to pull back.



Some slightly different terminology used here:
Source

Approximately 8 minutes had elapsed and the District Major said "let's ease off this thing for a minute," (pull back and regroup)


Source


After an initial attack on the fire inside the building, firefighters had to pull back and assume defensive positions around the structure. Interior floor collapses kept crews from re-entering the building.


Source

Because the scene was confused and smoke so thick, Dupee ordered firefighters to pull back before someone got hurt Sunday at a South Central warehouse fire.


Source

It is critical that the incident commander, as part of the fire ground strategy, ask the basic question: should they even be inside of the building? Is the potential benefit worth the risk to the fire fighters? Is progress being made on the fire, or is it time to pull back, protect the fire fighters and let the building go? If the owner didn't feel it was necessary to properly protect the property from fire, then why should fire fighters be placed in danger to protect it?



Source

Once firefighters realized that there were propane and LPG tanks involved in the derailment, and they were on fire, a decision was made to pull back. Firefighters abandoned hose lines in the streets when they realized the seriousness of the situation.



This is what the firemen who were on site that day have to say about WTC 7.



Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse:Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

www.firehouse.com...

- - -


Boyle: A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse:When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse:When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

We ended up getting back to the command post at Broadway and Vesey. By that time, there were probably 50 officers standing in a row. And I was like, I’m not going to stand on another line like that. So we came down with Fox. I knew Fox was somewhere. So we found out that Fox was over at Cortlandt and Church. They were putting a tower ladder into operation, so we made our way over to there. We ended up helping.

They had no pressure at all off of any of the hydrants from Broadway. He was asking if there was any way that we could do anything at Broadway or West. From Broadway to West westward toward Church Street there was no pressure at all. We spotted one of the squads up on Cortlandt over by Broadway and he was hooked up to a hydrant, and it was running. There was nobody there. I don’t know which squad it was, but you know they were in there. We were just sitting there, so we stretched the line off of him. We relayed it to 274, who relayed it to another engine down the street and eventually we got more pressure. I think it was 22 Truck on Church and Cortlandt and they were operating to number 5.

We did that for a little while. It took a while to get the hose there because there was a White Plains company helping us and they had some different fittings. So we got water to 22, but then that’s when they said all right, number 7 is coming down, shut everything down. I don’t know what time that was. It was all just a blur.

Firehouse: Did they shut the tower lines and remove them from there?

Boyle: No, just left them. Everything was left where it was. Just shut everything down, moved everybody back.

Firehouse: Could you see building 7 again from there?

Boyle: Seven, no. You got a half block away, you couldn’t see it, couldn’t see a damn thing. All we heard was they were worried about it coming down, everybody back away. We ran into the people running around for water for the eyes because everybody’s eyes were burned and I don’t know who they were. I think it was the doctor and some other people. They were just running around, washing people’s eyes out.

We were there about an hour or so until number 7 came down and everything was black again.

www.firehouse.com...

To the mods, go ahead and dock me for excessive quoting, but I am getting tiered of people not following links.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
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???


So your argument is that they can’t have “pulled” the firemen out, because they already “pulled” them out?

That makes no sense.



BTW, they don't always go into a building to fight fires. Soetimes they stand outside and spray water inside. In any case, they established a "safe zone" of about 600 feet around the building prior to it's collapse.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
As I stated Howard Roark, this is another failed attempt by you at diversion.

Silverstein clearly stated "PULL IT" not pull back.
That's like trying to convince me that green is red.


There is a big big big difference, one that you obviously chose to ignore.

You have not answered my question as to the firemen using "pull it" all the time, and this is because you can't.

I can give you audio of 83 NYFM that say they don't use the term.

If you can't debunk it you might as well shut the mouth.
If you can then I'll be glad to listen.

Remember though, (Pull It) and (Pull Back) have two different meanings.
Will you now state that Silverstein said (Pull Back)?



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
HR

If I believe you, then please provide one of your convenient explanations for Silversteins's "refusal” to give the very answer you claim is THE answer. Why not just play into the hands of this whitewash and say “well what I meant was to pull the firefighters out”

Instead he says “well that is not what I meant” and refused to elaborate.
He need not fear the truth if it is as benign as you propose.

An other asnwer I would ask you HR is what authority does Mr. Silverstein carry over the actions of the NYFD? Why would they even consult him over this saftey issue?



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
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???


So your argument is that they can’t have “pulled” the firemen out, because they already “pulled” them out?

That makes no sense.


Of course it makes sense.


By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.


Now this was at 11:30 and fire continued to rage up until 5:20pm then all of a sudden Mr Silverstein gets a phone call from the fire commander asking about pulling it, then watching the building collapse. Now what could they possibly be pulling.


BTW, they don't always go into a building to fight fires. Soetimes they stand outside and spray water inside. In any case, they established a "safe zone" of about 600 feet around the building prior to it's collapse.


BTW Firefighters use the term "pull back" not "Pull It".

Even if they were stood outside they would have been told to stop at 11:30 yet Mr Silverstein got the call at 5:20. More than enough time to remove all the firefighters. So again what was he asked about, a fire commander will make decisions dependent on the scale of the situation, thats his job right? A fire commander wouldn't ring a hotel owner to ask to pull back firefighters because a fire is so intense. So whats he doing even thinking about calling the lease owner???


Questions, questions, question.....

peace



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 03:38 AM
link   
It doesnt matter what Silverstein meant, what the interpretation was. Look at the pictures of the WTC7 before it fell, and look at the actual video. It woul dbe conspiracy theory to believe that wasnt brought down by a controleld demolition. Think what ya want about WTC1&2, but WTC7 leaves no doubt it was brought down by demolition.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
It's his building, why can't he do what he wants with it. I'm sure the engineers that get paid 6 figures evaluted the damage and decided to tell him that it be best to pull it. Alex Jones makes it sound as if Silverstein was the one who decided on this. More example of Jones propoganda and spin technique.

What's the relevence of this anyway?



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   
HR,

We're still awaiting answers.

An excellent question that was asked was by Hunting Veritas was

"A fire commander wouldn't ring a hotel owner to ask to pull back firefighters because a fire is so intense. So whats he doing even thinking about calling the lease owner???"

Lets' see what spin games you can play with this question by Hunting Veritas



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   
We're still waiting HR???


peace



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
What's the relevence of this anyway?

If I understand your question, the relevance is that it begs the question, Why were there explosive charges already planted in the building on the evening of Sept. 11th?



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Frosty

if I burn my own house down, can I still collect the insurace??

the relivence is that;
1 this would be insurance fraud.
2 the explosives would have to have been there prior to 911, it takes time the set a demolition, not to mention it would be practically imposible to do while the building was on fire.
3 it would prove PRIOR KNOWLEDGE.

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
Frosty

if I burn my own house down, can I still collect the insurace??

the relivence is that;
1 this would be insurance fraud.
2 the explosives would have to have been there prior to 911, it takes time the set a demolition, not to mention it would be practically imposible to do while the building was on fire.
3 it would prove PRIOR KNOWLEDGE.

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Halfofone]


If Silverstein was commiting insurance fraud, it would be sought out by now in a case closed manner. Fact is, he did not burn down his building, he demolished it after it sustained numerous and exorbitant amounts of fire damage which his building engineers more than likely said would be better dealt with if demolished.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   
You avoid the fact that you cannot rig a building with explosives while it is on fire!!!!

therefore in order for the building to be brought down by explosives they would have to have KNOWN the fires/ attacks were going to take place.

what say you to this?



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
"Same thing they always say pinky, time to take over the world!"

But really it never ceases to amaze me the number of people that still blindly believe the official story when it is clearly a work of fiction......

one day the truth will come out, shame it will already be too late.....


Daz out.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join