I think they meant "pull" in the sense that they were no lobger going to fight the fire.

Pulling a building means pulling it down. "Pulling" firefighters out of burning building is called "evacuating a burning building".

Originally posted by Banshee

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Actually, in the terminology of firefighting and such... "pull it" means to remove the firefighting crews and let the building burn, make no attempt to save it. It does not mean to pull the building down.

*bangs head*

People....read what the wise SO said many many months ago.

I was born into and raised in a family of firefighters.
He is NOT making things up.

Am I the only one who read this post? Banshee clearly states that she comes from a firefighting family and she says that "pulling" means to get the crew out, not bring the building down.

Again I will ask, since when do firefighters bring down buildings why they are still burning?

They don't demolish buildings, but they do evacuate when they are told one is about to fall. IN THE DOCUMENTARY that features Silverstein, the term "pulling" is used more than once to refer to controlled demolition BY THE PEOPLE PULLING building 5 and 6 in the months after 9/11. If this is you're explanation, why won't Silverstein just come out and admit that's what he meant? Why doesn't he return phone calls?

Anyway, there is something weird about this WTC7 history. Isn't it interesting, how did the surrounding buildings survive the collapse, but the WTC7 was brought down by a simple fire?

Is Silverstein a firefighter? What do you have to say about Banshee and SO's comments? Do you know a firefighter Roxdog? I don't, but I am trying to find a firefighter's definition of terminology.

I still don't believe that firefighters would hvae the knowledge or authority to purposely demolish a burning building.

Originally posted by Istvan
but the WTC7 was brought down by a simple fire?

I would hardly call it a simple fire. 2 very large buildings came down right by it as well as thousands of gallons of diesel fuel burning.

If that is a simple fire, then what is a major fire?

lets recap the facts here;
1.The term 'pull it' is used multiple times in the documentary, and the context it is always used is in the demolition of a building.
2.The firefighers were not fighting the fire in WTC 7 at all.

Two facts.

Now exactly what do you base the theory on that Silverstein meant 'stop fighting that fire and withdraw the firefighers' when the phrase that he used, 'pull it', was consistantly used to mean 'bring the building down, and there were no firefighters to 'pull'?

At the moment of the 2nd jet impact there was a huge explosion at the WTC7. What was that? Only one video shows that, it could be related to the collapse, too.

Originally posted by nyarlathotep

Originally posted by Istvan
but the WTC7 was brought down by a simple fire?

I would hardly call it a simple fire. 2 very large buildings came down right by it as well as thousands of gallons of diesel fuel burning.

If that is a simple fire, then what is a major fire?

Show us pictures of this giant fire. The pictures I've seen show two small fires with no indication they were caused by "thousands of gallons of fuel". This conspiracy theory seems pretty weak.

I base it on the fact that Silverstein is NOT A FIREFIGHTER. As for the "documentary", it is hardly that because a biased person put it together. Just like how Moore does his so called documentaries by leaving out key facts.

No one has answered my question about SO and Banshee's comments. Banshee says she comes from a firefighting family and contradicts what you say. I would tend to believe someone who is in the industry, not some businessman whose expertise is leasing office space.

The WTC fires were peaking at 700°C, the steel loses its strength at 1500°C. So it really was a big fire, the WTC7 burning on few pictures is hardly noticable. Still, I am looking for the explanation to the explosion near WTC7....

The 'documentary' is from PBS, hardly a biased source. I get the feeling that you arent even familier with the very comments in question.
Have you seen the documentary? Did you hear what Silverstein said?
There is a link with the initial post, I suggest you check it out.
Forgive me, this isnt ver-batim, but Silverstein says something like this..
"I got a call, they didnt know if they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said gee, theres been such a terrible loss of life today, perhaps the best thing to do is pull it,and they made the decision to pull it, and we watched the building collapse."

Odd isnt it, that just after he decided to 'pull it' that it collapsed.
In fact, he says he watched it collapse. Its almost as if he gave the order and was watching for the result.

Oh and as far as Banshees post......
Thats what your basing your stance on? Cause her daddy says so?
I guess her and her family are all-knowing when it comes to a comment made on a PBS documentary, even though the context is not consistant with the rest of the program.

OK, I have just spent a good hour searching the net for some other reference of "pulling a building" in the reference of it being a controlled demolition other than the Silverstein interview. The reason is I am looking for another perspective besides this documentary.

I have tried to find another reference to this type of "pulling". I have looked at demolition company websites and they have no reference to this. I have looked at definition and glossary pages and have come up with nothing. If this term is standard in the industry of building demolition, why is there no reference to it on the net other that this interview?

If you guys (antimyth, roxdog and istvan) can show me some other reference to this term other than the Silverstein interview, I would be willing to listen to this theory. Until then, having someone who has nothing to do with firefighting or building demolition (Silverstein) using this term doesn't really mean much.

Edit: antimyth, you don't have to be a smarta$$ about the Banshee comment. I was saying that Skeptic Overloard made the same comment as well and they know firefighters, that is why I said it. Not to say the mods are always right, but they are mods for a reason. PBS is not the source by the way, they are just the station that aired the program. Also, I did see the entire documentary and Silverstein did not imply that the order was given to pull and it immediately fell afterword. Wasn't he watching the building the whole time? He didn't give the order and then went to watch it. Besides he is just a leasing person, no ownership interest. I don't think that he would have even had the authority to bring the building down anyway.

[edit on 7-18-2004 by nyarlathotep]

January 29, 2004
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407

RE: The controlled demolitions of buildings WTC 6 & 7 on 9-11-2001

Dear Messrs. Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton:

On 9-16-2001, 5 days after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, our publication La Voz de Aztlan wrote an article titled "Jewish Magnate had just signed $3.2 billion deal on WTC towers" that is published at "Silverstein Article". Today, and because of our article, we are receiving from our readership disturbing and credible information and evidence that buildings WTC 6 and 7, under the control of Mr. Larry Silverstein, were in fact brought down by controlled demolitions. We have carefully analyzed the evidence and it has convinced us that buildings WTC 6 and 7 were not brought down by the collapsing Twin Towers but were brought down purposely by other causes.

You have been charged with investigating the 911 terrorist attacks and the American people are depending on you to make a thorough and honest investigation. We are urging you to take into consideration the following evidence and make an honest report to the American citizenry on your findings.

There is indisputable evidence that the 8-story WTC 6 building imploded at 9:03 a.m. which was immediately after United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower and before either of the twin towers had collapsed. The implosion was witnessed by millions of television viewers on CNN, a fact that you can easily verify. In addition, according to a September 18 Washington Post article, approximately 810 federal employees at the WTC 6 building were safely evacuated within 12 minutes of the first plane hitting the North Tower at 8:45 a.m..

Also, among the most puzzling events that occurred on 911 was the controlled demolition at 5:20 p.m. of the 48-story WTC 7 building. Please take the time to consider the following timeline of the 911 events:

-- 8:45 a.m. - (all times are EDT): American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the North Tower.

-- 9:03 a.m. - United Airlines Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower.

-- 9:03 a.m. - Building WTC 6 implodes.

-- 10:05 a.m. - The South Tower collapses.

-- 10:28 a.m. - The North Tower collapses.

-- 4:10 p.m. - Building WTC 7 reported on fire.

-- 5:20 p.m. - The WTC 7 building collapses by controlled demolition.

The controlled demolition of building WTC 7 was captured by CBS cameras. The video is at CBS Video. Please notice the neat collapse from the base down pointing to the undeniable conclusion that the bearing columns at the foundation were blasted through controlled dynamite explosions. FEMA made a supposed investigation that concluded that fire from diesel fuel for emergency generators in the basement caused the collapse. As a Civil Engineer and former Senior Building Engineer for Pacific Telephone Company, I can tell you that there is no way that burning diesel fuel caused such collapse. The first criteria when designing diesel fuel tanks is to make absolutely sure that the steel/concrete storage tanks are 100% fire resistant. Also, the amount of diesel fuel in a 48-story building would not be sufficient to cause the devastating collapse that can be seen in the video.

To assist your investigation, we are providing an aerial photograph of the WTC Complex that was taken soon after the attacks. The photograph is at WTC Complex. Please notice the distance of WTC 7 to the twin towers which makes it highly unlikely that it was hit from falling debris from the collapsing twin towers. In fact there was no reported fire at the WTC 7 building until 4:10 p.m., or over 5 hours after the collapse of the North Tower.

In addition, we received communications from Mr. Jeremy Baker expressing concern that WTC 7 was in fact purposely demolished by its owner Larry Silverstein at 5:20 p.m. on 911. As evidence, Mr. Baker provides a PBS documentary that was aired on September 2002 titled "America Rebuilds". In the documentary Larry Silverstein is heard saying, "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, 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."

It is not clear what Mr. Silverstein meant by "pulling the building" but there is no doubt what control demolition experts mean by it. They mean pulling the outside walls of a building through implosions, just the way the WTC 7 building came down. Taking into consideration that Larry Silverstein received over 7 Billion dollars from insurance companies for the losses of the entire WTC Complex, which he presently controls, it is only reasonable that your 911 Commission should investigate and report to the American people the truth on those things that are not making sense concerning the WTC terrorist attacks. There is now a large number of Americans that just don't believe the current administration's version of the attacks. It is incumbent upon your commission to regain the trust that has already been lost.

Respectfully,

Hector Carreon
Publisher
La Voz de Aztlan

Originally posted by roxdog
This conspiracy theory seems pretty weak.

Did you read the FEMA report? It was so weak, that is their reasoning for the collapse.

Exactly. FEMA's report is weak. That's part of the basis for the argument against the "official" story.

The problem that I have with your theories roxdog and antimyth, is that the only "proof" you have is this documentary, that's it. On the other hand, those of us think that terrorists actually did this, have so many different sources to refute and contadict your one source. If there was something other than this, I would be willing to listen to your theory.

Did you see my other post where I searched the net for "pulling" a building? If it is such a industry standard, why can't I find any other reference to it besides this interview?

This thing is very interesting to me:
•Controlled demolition requires few days at the least, in the case of such building, many weeks to plan that.
•Even if it was really a controlled demolition, setting up all those bombs, wiring it up, phisically impossible to be done in a few hours.
•There could be an irreversible result doing this without thinking it over, finding out that the building is fatally demaged, is not done by looking at it from outside.
•The collapse of WTC7 was rather surprising than intentional, still it was not some kind of accident, as every proof shows, that it was deliberately done, nad not caused by burning debris.

The whole story is getting worse. Should there be a conclusion to all this, being hidden from public?

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
The problem that I have with your theories roxdog and antimyth, is that the only "proof" you have is this documentary, that's it. On the other hand, those of us think that terrorists actually did this, have so many different sources to refute and contadict your one source. If there was something other than this, I would be willing to listen to your theory.

Did you see my other post where I searched the net for "pulling" a building? If it is such a industry standard, why can't I find any other reference to it besides this interview?

This is once very small piece. Tiny actually. So I guess you approve of the WTC remains (ie, the evidence) being destroyed immediatly after the attack, correct?