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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   

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.


So you don't believe the offcial FEMA story that fire brought down the building?

Ultimately, it's all a red herring(the insurance fraud angle) As it doesnt take away from the soul crushing and sinister truth of 9/11's events, and the subsequent coverup. When you control the media, and are in bed with the corporations that control the media, its very easy to put out all the veiled truths you want.




posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
The truth is this. The building was pulled end of story. Firemen don't call landlords or leaseholders and let them dictate how the situation should be handled.

What Silverstein said was a Freudian slip and one that will come back to haunt all the criminals involved in 9-11 sooner then they can imagine.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
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


I have never had a building that I owned burn down, so I can't speak from direct experience, but it seems logical to me that the NYFD would contact the building owner and tell them that they were not going to make any effort to save his building.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
The truth is this. The building was pulled end of story. Firemen don't call landlords or leaseholders and let them dictate how the situation should be handled.



What evidence do you have that Silerstien dictated how the situation would be handled?

They called him and told him that they were going to "pull" back.

He agreeed that given the situation, thatthat was the wise thing to do.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Lanotom
The truth is this. The building was pulled end of story. Firemen don't call landlords or leaseholders and let them dictate how the situation should be handled.



What evidence do you have that Silerstien dictated how the situation would be handled?

They called him and told him that they were going to "pull" back.

He agreeed that given the situation, thatthat was the wise thing to do.



have another drink, howard. lol
ewwwww, too much. okay, have a coffee instead.
pressures at work must be getting more intense. is the boss coming down on you for failing to convince the web community that the official story is not just so much drivel?

nobody used the term 'pull back', howard. it's 'pull it'.

and, i think we should remind you in every post, silverstein himself didn't say what he DID mean, so how do you know what he meant? why doesn't he just come clean? why not say, 'oh, i meant pull it the firefighting operations, .....DOH!, ....i did 'it' again!, .....i meant pull BACK the firefighting operations, yeah that's the ticket, pull BACK, and then we watched the buildings fall!'

and once more, a little armchair psychology, why did he use one sentence for two seperate ideas? his original statement sounds like a statement of cause and effect, 'they decided to pull, then we watched the buildings fall'.

he didn't say, 'then they decided to pull back. soon afterwards, we watched the buildings fall'. this would have been one way to seperate those two different ideas into different sentences. why will silverstein not clarify? talk to your lawyer about it.

rule number one for a criminal in court. plead the fifth.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I think people get stuck on the WTC 7 issue and Silverstein in trying to figure out the 9/11 puzzle. WTC 7 is a pivotal role, but insurance collected is very low on the reasoning.

Half the people that try to make WTC 7 look on the up and up, said it needed to be demolished. If you believe it was demolished for whatever reason, then you believe demolition rigs were present pre 9/11.

It's outlandish to think the US government was absolutely involved in orchestrating 9/11 at every level...but it would be ignorant to think the US had zero involvement or complicity, and nothing to gain.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Here HR, I will break it down for you so you can better understand and when you're done jump over here and put your (C) vote in.

Here's the part where the fire commander calls the landlord.
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 here's where the landlord dictates the action
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.




Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Lanotom
The truth is this. The building was pulled end of story. Firemen don't call landlords or leaseholders and let them dictate how the situation should be handled.



What evidence do you have that Silerstien dictated how the situation would be handled?

They called him and told him that they were going to "pull" back.

He agreeed that given the situation, thatthat was the wise thing to do.





[edit on 12-7-2005 by Lanotom]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a public apology.......

i'm sorry about the drunk comment, howard.
it adds nothing to the thread.
i was a little drunk, myself, and i tire of you making fun of people who are merely seeking answers to difficult questions.
people like the ones you publicly berate in your signature, you know? it's like heads on pikes outside of a castle.

remember when you quoted me, howard? that same quote is now part of my own signature. i stand by it. in fact, your signature practice can be included under, 'labeled'.

has howard been warned for his practice of rubbing peoples mistakes, and/or wild theories, in their faces? why doesn't some caring mod send HIM a warning? it is an obvious attack on those members, and as such, against the T&C, no?

i find the new(to me) revelation from lazarus very interesting. the RAND CORPORATION connection, you know? 'cause howard roark was an ayn rand character who blew up his own skyscrapers, you know? and our howard does hazmat cleanups, you know? and our howard seems to be intimately knowledgable about the towers, you know? anyway, i find that interesting.
anne rand believed aristocracy was the natural political order. she believed that the capable people, the true movers and shakers of society, would be forced into retreat by the rampant nepotism of the halls of power. she believed we were swinging towards a political reality that reduced everyone to the lowest common denominator instead of praising/rewarding excellence. she may have been right, but i believe the rand corporation has become that which it sought to avoid.

in short, she was a snob who thought she was in an elite group of geniuses that are better than everyone else. it's funny how some people can't see themselves in the mirror.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
So HowardRoark was this evidence enough?

And where is your evidence that "They called him and told him that they were going to "pull" back."

Have you ever listened to what Silverstein said? Here's the video again.

thewebfairy.com...

Please refer to my post 2 above this.


[edit on 13-7-2005 by Lanotom]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8bitagent

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.


So you don't believe the offcial FEMA story that fire brought down the building?


So if he believes the Offical story, They he would know that FEMA stated that they were set up for 9/11 on the night of 9/10.

Its in that video The Greatest Lie Ever Sold..

Bitorren it and look about 2/3's of the way thru.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
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?


Insurance companies are not run by complete morons.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Insurance companies are not run by complete morons.


no, but they are mostly staffed by morons. i know. i used to work in the head office of zurich.
it only takes one evil genius to subjugate a throng.
insurance companies are the biggest crooks on the planet, next to bankers.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Silverstein: "They made the decission to "Pull it" and then we watched the building collapse"

How did "they" know when the building would collapse by the fire. And then stay and watch it, if it's not done by demolition?

If it's not done by demolitons, how come the WHOLE building collapsed?



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Its like I said before.

A fire commander will make decisions upon the scale of the situation. If a fire is too intense to fight. It will be left to burn. I think the last thing on a fire commanders mind is worrying about what the lease owner is going to say about pulling firefighters out.


The question I pose yet again.

If there were no fire fighters in the building past 1pm. Then why did silverstein get a call at 5:20 by the "suposed" fire commander asking to "pull it"........There were NO FIREFIGHTERS close to the outside or inside the building so again, what is he asked about.

He F'd up. Simple as that. He messed up big time and he tried to cover his tracks by saying the "fire commander" called him. Does anyone have anything about a fire commander ringing Mr Silverstein? I don't remember anyone interviewing the fire commander and asking him what he said to silverstein??

Peace



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Insurance companies are not run by complete morons.


No, If the Landlord went nudge, nudge.....wink, wink.......there you go have 50 million. He had 500 million in profits so 50 mill to the insurance co. is like a godsend.

Its not rocket science.

Out of curiosity your telling me you would turn down 50 mil. to keep quiet.
If the insurance co. was that bothered it could have got a full investigation underway then Mr Silverstein would get NOTHING.

Peace



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
First off, he said "pull it" when he was talking about the building not the fire fighters, no argument, watch the PBS documentry.

Second, how the fudge did a fire start in building 7 anyways? The building was not even IN the debris field, but many other buildings were, that did catch on fire, and they got put out.

Third, how did the firefighters that did "pull" the building, lay the explosives, correctitlly I might add, DURRING a supposidlly RAGING fire?

Does anyone know what floors the fires started on? From what I understand there was some preaty important offices in building 7; like the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, FEMA, and the mayors emergincy command and control center. Wouldn't it be a little important to keep the last two offices OPEN durring a emergency? Think MABY that fire would be worth fighting? OOhh wait, what is the best way to destroy incriminating documents? Ill tell you, you burn them. OOhh wait you could still mix the ashes up with millions of tons of steel, and ship that to china.. Thats the best way


Aim

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   
It's called the good ol' hands dirty move.

You get everyone in the group powerful enough to cause problems if they were ever to leave said group (Silverstein in this case) covered in so much 'blood' that if they were to ever do anything they would be literally crucified.

Silverstein is in as deep as the others, and he sure as heck wont be leaking any information if he values his life.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Just a bit more info

From the Fire Engineering Magazine:


Of all the adjacent buildings, 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building to the north of the North Tower, across Vesey Street, presented the greatest threat of collapse. It hovered over the debris field on which hundreds of firefighters searched. It was heavily damaged and involved in fire. It is believed these fires occurred in part because the Port Authority, against the recommendations of the fire department, had placed aboveground tanks of diesel fuel—a 42,000-gallon tank at ground level and three 275-gallon tanks on the fifth, seventh, and eight floors—inside the building, underneath transfer beams that allowed the high-rise to be constructed above an electrical substation. Given the limited water supply and the first strategic priority, which was to search for survivors in the rubble, FDNY did not fight the fires, which were on the lower floors and burned for hours. In interviews, several FDNY officers on the scene said they were not aware of combustible liquid pool fires in the building.

Be that as it may, FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire—the other two had collapsed earlier that day. FDNY shrugged it off and went back to work to begin a long, continuous night of searching for brothers and other lost people on the longest day in the history of the fire service.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Just a bit more info indeed.


Of all the adjacent buildings, 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building to the north of the North Tower, across Vesey Street, presented the greatest threat of collapse. It hovered over the debris field on which hundreds of firefighters searched. It was heavily damaged and involved in fire. It is believed these fires occurred in part because the Port Authority, against the recommendations of the fire department, had placed aboveground tanks of diesel fuel—a 42,000-gallon tank at ground level and three 275-gallon tanks on the fifth, seventh, and eight floors—inside the building, underneath transfer beams that allowed the high-rise to be constructed above an electrical substation. Given the limited water supply and the first strategic priority, which was to search for survivors in the rubble, FDNY did not fight the fires, which were on the lower floors and burned for hours. In interviews, several FDNY officers on the scene said they were not aware of combustible liquid pool fires in the building.

Be that as it may, FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse.




Here's a summary:

Between three skyscrapers, the one with the fires we cannot explain presented the greatest threat of collapse! It was heavily damaged like, really bad, even though we have no idea why, as no known major debris from the impacts hit it, and it was on fire (for some equally unknown reason)!

We think (or are going to say we think) that those fires started because of something to do with some gas tanks conveniently placed around the buildings. Hey, don't ask us how they caught on fire, cause we're not saying! We're just going to tell you there were tanks placed around and in the building and let you guess the rest.

But be all that as it may, those firefighters still said they thought it was going to come down maybe! So therefore you should believe it unquestioningly.




posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
As I understand it, WTC 7, along with WTC 6 was hit by debris from the collapse of WTC 1.

Do you have specific information that this is not possible?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join