It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
First of all I would like to say that I am going to send you a message because 500 characters can't accurately explain the information I'm going to give you. My first impression of you from reading your comments was that you were a fairly reasonable person that is perhaps misguided (by Alex Jones maybe?) or otherwise uninformed (I'm not being mean, I was woefully uninformed 6 months ago). That's the only reason why I'm doing this.
Okay (cracks knuckles) I believe you are refering to a PBS documentary called "America Rebuilds" which aired in 2002. During the show there is a segment where Larry Sliverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, speaks about the events of the day. 9/11 conspiracy theorists (now to be refered to as CT or CTers) believe that Mr. Silverstein's use of the term "pull it" is a clear admission that WTC 7 was brought down using a controlled demolition. This, however, is completley untrue. This entire CT is based of the lie that to "pull" is a common term used when bringing buildings down by controlled demolition. In fact, "pull" is not a term used to define bringing a building down by explosives, but it is a term used when a demolition team literally pulls a building down using cable attached to cranes. This method is only used on short buildings (under 10 stories) that usually have been weakened or partially collapsed. This method was used in the demolition of WTC 6 weeks after the attacks during clean-up efforts.
Now onto what Mr. Silverstein meant by "pull." In the documentary Mr. Silverstein is refering to a call he received from FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro. Chief Nigro called at 3:00 pm on 9/11 to inform Mr Silverstein that they could not control the fires in WTC 7 and that the building was in danger of imminent collapse. Chief Nigro said that they were going to "pull" the contingent of firefighters and other personnel back three blocks from WTC 7 for safety reasons. Mr. Silverstein agreed that that was the smartest thing to do. He then says in the documentary that "THEY" made the decision to "pull" the firefighters out, they refering to Chief Nigro. Since he did not explain what he meant by "it" in the documentary, CT's assumed that he meant the building, not the firefighters. In 2005, Mr. Silverstein defined what he meant by "it" during the documentary. So,basically this is shoddy research (if any was conducted) and a quote taken out of context....that's all.
As for your claim that no other skscraper has fallen from fire alone, that is true. However, you must take into consideration the extreme circumstance that took place on 9/11. Another YouTuber made similiar claim and I sent him a message. I'm going to copy an paste what I sent him to save me typing it again
Yes, I know that conspiracy theorists like to claim that WTC's 1, 2, and 7 were the first buildings to collapse from fire alone. This claim in itself is ridiculous because no other building in the world has been hit with 200 ton bullets traveling 490 and 590 mph, rocked by explosions, had 15% of thier support columns severed, with others severely damaged and had thier fire insulation blown off, all before the fires even began to take thier toll. For WTC 7, no other building has had the full wieght of 47 stories on its supports after having the lower 10 floors scooped out 25% into the depth of the building by falling debris and its fires left to burn for 7 hours. Most high rises also have a concrete inner core or concrete encased outer columns or both. The WTC had niether. Conspiracy theorists can ignore these factors all they want, but everything from the fires to gravity, basically, the laws of physics didn't. Regardless of these facts, there are other example of steel-frame buildings/structures collapsing from fire alone, without even a plane hitting them.
In April 2007, section of Interstate 580 collapsed from prolonged exposure to fire.
In 1997, 3 four story buildings at the Kader Toy Factory in Singapore caught fire. All three collapsed from fire alone in under 2 hours.
Dogwood Elementary School in Virginia caught fire in 2000, resulting in much of the steel framed sections to start collapsing in less than 21 minutes.
In 2005, fires broke out on the steel-framed Mumbai High North Platform causing it to completley collapse in 2 hours.
In 2005, the 32 story Windsor Building in Madrid caught fire. Although only the top 11 floors (minus the concrete inner floor) were comprised of a steel-framed structure, all 11 floors collapsed from fire alone.
I could keep going. All of these happened within the last ten years (except the toy factory in Singapore). So to say that the WTC buildings were the only steel-framed buildings in history to fall from fire (they did not, it was a combo of the plane impacts/fire) is ridiculous. As for the firefighters, I cannot say why they weren't fighting the fires, but I can make a logical guess. They were more than likely concerned with the rescue of the people in the upper floors of the WTC towers. According to eyewitness, some firefighters did fight the fires, but those tasks were scrapped in favor of rescue attempts and in the case of WTC 7, because of low water pressure and fears of building collapse. I think just the immensity of the disaster overwhelmed the emergency services.
End of Message
Finally, you say that an Air Force bomber hit the Empire State Building in the 50's. I think you are refering to a B-25 bomber that struck the Empire State Building in 1945. However, you must realize that a 767 weighs 10 times as much a B-25. The 767's on 9/11 were also traveling twice as fast (490 and 590 mph) as the top speed of a B-25 (230 mph). Using the formula to figure out the kinetic energy of an object you come to the conclusion that the 767's struck the WTC's with well over 40 times the energy of the B-25 hitting the Empire State Building. A B-25 is 51' long with a wingspan of 67'. A 767 is 159' long with a wingspan of 156'. The 767's struck the 55% glass and 45% steel exterior of the WTC towers creating a gash 156' across. The B-25 struck the concrete exterior of the Empire State Bld creating a gash 18' across (that's right the Pentagon wasn't the first time in history that a plane created a hole less than the full length of its wingspan). Most importantly the B-25 was low on fuel and created only small fires which burned out after only 35 minutes (remember the WTC towers only collapsed after burning intensely for 56 and 102 minutes respectivley).
In closing (I feel like I just wrote a term paper), I just hope that I have helped you. 6 months ago I was convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. However, I made the mistake of only watching "Loose Change" and "Zeitgiest." Then I started listening to Alex Jones. After doing some of my own research I began to realize how Dylan Avery (maker of Loose Change) and Alex Jones are frauds. They have blatantly lied and misled people to cash in on the conspiracy craze. Most CT's can either be easily explained or are so unlikely that they are laughable, but cannot be proven one way or another (example: media foreknowledge of 9/11). I think most CTer's believe that 9/11 was an inside job and try to find evidence to prove themselves right. However, this is not how hypothesis's are proven. You must come up with a theory and try to find evidence proving it wrong. This is how the scientific method works. Please, just look into 9/11 beyond these phonies. If you wish I can send you links to where I have obtained all the information I have given you. If you have any more questions I would be happy to steer you in the right direction. Debunking 9/11 CT's has become something of a hobby for me
Take care and God Bless,
I think that maybe you've convinced everyone here at ATS.
No one has anything to say.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please send me his e-mail adress so i can send him a nice meassgae back about how wrong he is about the "PULL IT" thing.
Originally posted by Damocles
im just very curious here ultima. is your contention that "pull it" IS a demo term based on reading stuff online OR have you spoken to a number of people who are in the industry who are willing to go on the record as saying that "oh yeah, we use the term 'pull it' all the time in reference to dropping a building with HE"?
Originally posted by Odessy
why ThichHeaded, you sound so hostile.
not everyone knows everything you do, not everyone has chilled in the 9/11 forums for as long as you, not everyone has read everything as much as you...
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Maybe people should do research before posting something that they do not know much about.
Originally posted by Odessy
if you dont feel like reiterating, then post a link, post something useful, dont criticize another member.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thats very funny, since that exactly what most of the beleivers do.
They do not post links and they criticize everyone that does not agree with them, maybe others are getting tired of the way the believers are acting.
In fact, "pull" is not a term used to define bringing a building down by explosives, but it is a term used when a demolition team literally pulls a building down using cable attached to cranes. This method is only used on short buildings (under 10 stories) that usually have been weakened or partially collapsed.