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.

 

Larry Silverstein question

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Now this is creepy, someone mentioned i think on this site or on another website that Larry Silverstein admitted on television on a pbs i think documentry that he made a decision to pull building 7, but if this is true then how come the police dont arrest him? i mean if a member of the public where to yell outisde "i am a terrorist, i bombed wtc 7 down" you would get arrested wouldnt you? so why doesnt this man?. Its just strange to me and i find this very sinister.

Here is a website about it
www.whatreallyhappened.com...




posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Areesting him would create too many unwanted questions. Like how the explosives in building 7 got there, seeing how it takes days, sometimes weeks, to properly plant and place explosives.

Which then might cause people to look cloers at the twin towers.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
It could also be because the idea that "pull it" automatically means it was a controlled demoltion would not stand up in a grand jury. Especially since Silverstein has explained that he meant pull the firefighters not the building.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
listen to the audio on this video

video.google.com...

"yea, thats why hes pulled everybody outta here"



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by blatantblue
listen to the audio on this video

video.google.com...

"yea, thats why hes pulled everybody outta here"




Oh, please! "Pull it" and "pull everybody outa there" have two very different meanings. In context of Larry Silverstein's interview in the documentary entitled "America Rebuilds," which you can buy here:
www.pbs.org...

he is clearly talking about demolishing the building. See for yourself here:
video.google.com...

In the same documentary, a few minutes after Silverstein says they made the decision to "pull it," a worker defines for the viewer what the term "pull it" means.
www.prisonplanet.com...

As for why they don't arrest Silverstein- well, that would lead to the arrest everyone else involved up to and including Bush and Chaney.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
In the realm of common speech,

"pull it"

in no way, references pulling fire fighters out of a building and more so favors demolition or taking down something. Who are you kidding?



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
'It' in this case would be the firefighting operation.
1. He was talking to a firefighter at the time, to a firefighter, pull it means to pull the teams fighting the fire out and let it burn.
2. Firefighters don't demolish buildings.
3. He wouldn't know demolition terms.
4. Pulling to a demolitionist is a literal meaning, they attach cables and PULL the building over with heavy machinery, no explosives.

[edit on 14-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Are some of you guys suffering from braindamage?
It is clear he speaks of destroying the building... "decided to pull it" "then we watched
the building collapse".

Also note that he says "pull it" and not "them".
When you refer to a bunch of people you use "them".
When you refer to a building or a thing you use "it".

[edit on 14-8-2006 by zren]

[edit on 14-8-2006 by zren]


MMP

posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by zren
Are some of you guys suffering from braindamage?
It is clear he speaks of destroying the building... "decided to pull it" "then we watched
the building collapse".

Also note that he says "pull it" and not "them".
When you refer to a bunch of people you use "them".
When you refer to a building or a thing you use "it".

Thank you! I couldn't agree more. Great post.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
3. He wouldn't know demolition terms.

But Larry Silverstein knows the terms that firefighters use...
GET REAL!



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   


'It' in this case would be the firefighting operation.


Guess you didn't see this,



He was talking to a firefighter at the time, to a firefighter, pull it means to pull the teams fighting the fire out and let it burn.


or this,



Pulling to a demolitionist is a literal meaning, they attach cables and PULL the building over with heavy machinery, no explosives.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Saying "Pull it" referring to the firefighters, or the operation is an overcritical analysis of the situation. Since the fires were in no way out of control and untammable, the diesel fuel only burned for song long, then the "raging infernos" began to die down.

That was probably a cover story to save his behind from any prosecution.

In all reality terms of the situation he was in, pull it most definately referred to some type of way to bring the building down. Taking out firefighters? Come on. It would of been "Pull your men out", "Pull your firefighters out". I would of even accepted "Pull them out" as a term for firefighters, but saying "pull it" without getting over-analytical refers to the building itself being pulled down.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   


Since the fires were in no way out of control and untammable, the diesel fuel only burned for song long, then the "raging infernos" began to die down.


I'm going to guess your never seen the video that shows smoke poring out of the entire building, or all the quotes from firemen saying they knew it was going to come down because it was so heavily damaged from the fire and debris.

911myths.com...

There's even a video on this page at the bottom of the smoke coming out.



It would of been "Pull your men out", "Pull your firefighters out". I would of even accepted "Pull them out" as a term for firefighters, but saying "pull it" without getting over-analytical refers to the building itself being pulled down.


HE WAS TALKING TO A FIREMAN, 'it' refers to the firefighting operations, it's the only explaination that makes any sense. Firemen don't demolish buildings. Pulling means to literaly pull it down with cables and heavy machinery. You have provided no evidence otherwise, you just keep repeating what i've already proved wrong.

PS. Look at the FULL quote.

[edit on 14-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Deputy Chief Nick Visconti
Division 14 - 34 years


Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they’re not trying to put this fire out? I didn’t realize how much they had because my view was obstructed. All I could see was the upper floor. At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we’ve got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that’s on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you’ve got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we’ve got to get those people out of there.


www.firehouse.com...


Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years


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.

www.firehouse.com...



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I'm still spell bound by the fact that large amounts of debris made it over to WTC 7 in the first place to cause damage, which made small fires, which couldn't even be put out by the sprinkler system. Then the fires making it to the ground level, which couldn't be put out by fire fighters, igniting the deisel tank on fire, which is a hydrocarbon (just like the jet fuel) and still managed to bring the building down. Not to mention the building looked like a conventional demolition, falling from the ground floor up.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Not to mention that the FEMA Report states that the vast majority of the diesel was recovered after WTC7's collapse, so it didn't even burn.

The FEMA Report even suggests that the little fuel that wasn't recovered was just used prior to the collapse, removed for a controlled burn by large pumps.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Since the fires were in no way out of control and untammable

Then why'd he make the decision to "pull it"?


According to Larry the only reason why he said "pull it" was because the fires were out of control.
So which is it?



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
The idea is that he was trying to justify why they decided to "pull it." In other words, he was providing an excuse (massive, invisible fires).

Make a little more sense now? (No, of course it doesn't.
)



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
That's just weird, haha I laugh at how you pull out something insignificant went looking what my post on WTC 7, but it's still a question that needs to be answered none the less.

If he did indeed mean to pull it and the building was tamable? Then why did he pull it?

Edit: But then again I take some of that back, because that's what the thread's about isn't it, but still, the atmosphere/situation of the WTC 7 deal still gives us incite into what decision was made and why.. so actually.. I don't take it back


[edit on 8/14/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   


The idea is that he was trying to justify why they decided to "pull it." In other words, he was providing an excuse (massive, invisible fires).


But he never made the decision, that was up to the fire chief.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   
It'd be more helpful study the nature of World Trade Center 7's situation, it would help us get a more clearer picture on just exactly what was said.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join