What did Larry Silverstein mean by "Pull It"?

reply to post by Wildbob77


Yes! That is my opinion; those people all have a price tag. Who told you a chief can not be bought?

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by ashamedamerican
I'm so tired of official story parrots claiming things like "Larry Silverstein meant pull the firefighters out of the building" that I have decided to put this one to rest once and for all.

Its posts like this one that ensures a never-ending source of humor and entertainment, if such can come out of Sept 11.

To think that Silverstein would, on national television, admit to knowing the building was rigged for demolition is really the absolute zenith of absurdity and hilariousness.

But, we've come to expect that from the Troothers, so full speed ahead!

[edit on 12-12-2008 by pinch]

Read the actual information provided rather than just the thread title and you should see how painfully obvious it is.
I'm glad you find 9/11 humorous and entertaining, it shows alot about your frame of mind.

By the way it would be spelled "truthers" not troothers, trufers, troofers, etc.
You may find this helpful in the future.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

reply to post by ashamedamerican


You are right. The firefighters were PULLED back several hours before the building collapsed. Whether or not a conspiracy was involved, I don't believe that the NYFD was involved in the demolition of this building.

A billionaire that lies...That's entirely possible. But I don't think that you get to be that rich by blurting out things you don't want know to the general public on TV.

Also, Silverstein didn't have any authority over the NYFD. He couldn't command them to do anything.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
So you now believe that the NYFD was involved.

I think that is rubbish.

In the coverup yes, as I stated, be realistic, do you think a fire chief would just expose this all?

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by ashamedamerican

 

You are right. The firefighters were PULLED back several hours before the building collapsed. Whether or not a conspiracy was involved, I don't believe that the NYFD was involved in the demolition of this building.

A billionaire that lies...That's entirely possible. But I don't think that you get to be that rich by blurting out things you don't want know to the general public on TV.

Also, Silverstein didn't have any authority over the NYFD. He couldn't command them to do anything.

Ok for the second or third time now...
I didn't say that "the NYFD was involved in the demolition of this building."

I do however believe that certain key people within the NYFD, like your favorite chief were involved with the coverup, it's not like he would have had a choice in the matter.

Look over the information I posted...

There is plenty of information out there about firefighters and building 7.

There were fires raging in building 7. Rescues were underway when the decision was made to create a collapse zone around building 7. You have to remember that the firemen had just seen 2 buildings come down that day.

So, the firefighters pulled back. That's all documented. There is no cover up with regard to the movements of the NYFD that day.

Three hours after the firefighters were pulled back the building came down.

I stand my ground. There is no evidence that NYFD was involved in the collapse or demolition of building 7.

Originally posted by Wildbob77

Obviously one of the two is not telling the truth.

It just depends on what time the phone call was made. If Dan Nigro had already PULLED his men back before he call Silverstein, then both statements could be true.

Then why would Silverstein suggest to this fire commander "we've had so much loss of life, maybe the best thing to do would be to pull it"? To me, that statement means that the firefighters haven't been "pulled" yet.

So, again, the two statements do not jive with each other and obviously someone is lying.

[edit on 12/12/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by Wildbob77

 

Yes! That is my opinion; those people all have a price tag. Who told you a chief can not be bought?

Not that I'm saying that Nigro is involved or anything. But, isn't it uncanny that he is now "retired". I wonder if he got a nice retirement fund?

Originally posted by Wildbob77
There is plenty of information out there about firefighters and building 7.

There were fires raging in building 7. Rescues were underway when the decision was made to create a collapse zone around building 7. You have to remember that the firemen had just seen 2 buildings come down that day.

So, the firefighters pulled back. That's all documented. There is no cover up with regard to the movements of the NYFD that day.

Three hours after the firefighters were pulled back the building came down.

I stand my ground. There is no evidence that NYFD was involved in the collapse or demolition of building 7.

Since I have posted my sources stating that "According to FEMA, NIST, and Frank Fellini, the Assistant Chief responsible for WTC 7 at that time, there weren’t any firefighters in the building."
I would love to see your sources proving that "There were fires raging in building 7. Rescues were underway when the decision was made to create a collapse zone around building 7" and that this has anything to do with Silverstein's statement.

First of all there were no "raging fires, try watching the videos. The only thing "raging" about those fires are the "raging" lies NIST has told you.

Secondly I would like to see your source stating that the decision to "create a collapse zone around building 7" has anything to do with Silverstein's statement, which by the way is the topic of this thread.

Again now for like the third or fourth time...
I did not say that the "NYFD was involved in the collapse or demolition of building 7" so feel free to stop using that claim to make me look bad and put words in my mouth, it's misleading and intellectually dishonest of you to imply that.

Again one more time in case you didn't catch that, since I've already had to repeat it three or four times for you to grasp it.

I did not say that the "NYFD was involved in the collapse or demolition of building 7" so feel free to stop using that claim to make me look bad and put words in my mouth, it's misleading and intellectually dishonest of you to imply that.

Originally posted by ashamedamerican

Originally posted by pinch
But, we've come to expect that from the Troothers, so full speed ahead!

By the way it would be spelled "truthers" not troothers, trufers, troofers, etc.
You may find this helpful in the future.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

This might help Mr. pinch also.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

1g.) Political Baiting: You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling, and related right-versus-left political bickering while posting in any topical forum or discussion thread on AboveTopSecret.com. You will not alter political candidate names or party affiliations in order to insult or deride the opposition. i.e. "Shrillary", "McSame", "Obamanazi's", "Repukelicans", etc...

I'm pretty sure that this could be taken to mean "troofers" as well.

Or this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But yet, no one gets dinged for this?

So, if we are "truthers", what does that make "them"? "Liars"?

reply to post by Wildbob77

I stand my ground. There is no evidence that NYFD was involved in the collapse or demolition of building 7.

You are entitle to your “opinions”, However it does not make it right.

Originally posted by Griff
But yet, no one gets dinged for this?

So, if we are "truthers", what does that make "them"? "Liars"?

No, it seems that it's usually people like us trying to defend our statements against people misrepresenting them who get the attention of mods, not the original offenders. I can only assume that it's because mods feel bad for them though, and wouldn't want to be seen as picking on the mentally challenged.

And yes, I would have to say that if we're the "truthers" that would make them the "liars". star for you!

reply to post by ashamedamerican

And yes, I would have to say that if we're the "truthers" that would make them the "liars".

star for you!

LOL I fell out of my chair LOL my self-silly!
I mean really! Some of these poster can be ridiculous to stoop so low to call us names when they are in a losing battle.

Originally posted by ashamedamerican
Wildbob 77:
You seriously think a fire chief ISN'T going to issue a letter saying something like that?
Yeah he's just going to blow a government coverup wide open...

That's fine. We'll just let this lay out there and wallow with the nukes that brought the towers down or the invisible aircraft or the laser-destructo-beam or the hologram aircraft or the forward-spraying fuel or the "pod" or the missile that was fired a nanosecond before impact from the aforementioned invisible plane or the remote-control (invisible/hologrammed) aircraft or explosives were added during the construction or the entire building was wired for destruction in the hours before its failure or whatever else the Troothers can think up.

Its all good!

Larry meant pull the building, bringing those two towers (and building 7) down. He never said what time he received that phone call, so for all we know he could of originally been referring to the towers, it's only the way it's edited to suggest that it's wtc7. The loss of life he was referring to could of been the people jumping from the towers.




What does "pull it" mean? Controlled demolition tell us in the above video.



Fortunately for Larry he is wealthy enough to afford the kind of lawyers who would spin his comments far enough to the point of it meaning something else, but we all know what he really meant.




[edit on 12-12-2008 by Insolubrious]

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by ashamedamerican
Wildbob 77:
You seriously think a fire chief ISN'T going to issue a letter saying something like that?
Yeah he's just going to blow a government coverup wide open...

That's fine. We'll just let this lay out there and wallow with the nukes that brought the towers down or the invisible aircraft or the laser-destructo-beam or the hologram aircraft or the forward-spraying fuel or the "pod" or the missile that was fired a nanosecond before impact from the aforementioned invisible plane or the remote-control (invisible/hologrammed) aircraft or explosives were added during the construction or the entire building was wired for destruction in the hours before its failure or whatever else the Troothers can think up.

Its all good!

1g.) Political Baiting: You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling, and related right-versus-left political bickering while posting in any topical forum or discussion thread on AboveTopSecret.com. You will not alter political candidate names or party affiliations in order to insult or deride the opposition. i.e. "Shrillary", "McSame", "Obamanazi's", "Repukelicans", etc...

Tsk tsk Pinch... Don't you have better tactics?

Here are links to WTC 7 fires. I searched google using the terms firefighter sccounts of 911 building 7.

Firefighter accounts 1

Excerpt

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

A often quoted statement from Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that thebuilding’s integrity was in serious doubt. [Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

Another link

Excerpt

They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it,
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right,
get out of that building because that 7, they were really
worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they
regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and
West Street. They put everybody back in there.

Finally it did come down. From there - this is much
later on in the day, because every day we wereso worried about that building we didn't really want to
get people close. They were trying to limit the amount
of people that were in there. Finally it did come down.
That's when they let the guys go in. I just remember we
started searching around all the rigs.

That was basically the rest of the day, the
rest of the night. We were searching around rigs looking
for men. That was it.

Another firefighter comment

Excerpt

From then, we continued to operate and we got word on the handy talky traffic that there was another group that had formed over on Church Street and Chief Tom Earing from the Eighth Division, now he's down in the Sixth Division, had set up and was operating on that side. We set up a staging area further up. Eventually we moved once things got going, and moved up closer to the staging area down a little closer to the actual operation.

Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --

Q. A collapse zone?

A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't havepeople working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and soon. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been. That's about it.

Yet another one

Excerpt

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.

If you search the internet for firefighter reports of 911, you can find many interesting things that support many points of view. These comments seem to suggest that there was extensive damage to building 7 and that the firefighters thought there were fires throughout the building. "

Whether you're a truther of a debunker, you cannot just choose a few words and build your entire argument around that. You need to look at lots and lots of data. Then you can come up with a model of what happened.
I don't believe that either Silverstein or the NYFD was involved in the demolition of building 7. Silverstein's pull it comment to me seems to fit in with what the fire department personnel reports with regard to the timeline for building 7. That doesn't mean that it wasn't a controlled demolition. It just means that I don't think they were involved.


[edit on 12-12-2008 by Wildbob77]

[edit on 12-12-2008 by Wildbob77]


Mod Edit: Use External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/12/2008 by Hal9000]

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Here are links to WTC 7 fires. I searched google using the terms firefighter sccounts of 911 building 7.

Excerpt "1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca"

"2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames.

I respectfully disagree.

Here is a brief summary of the observed fires in WTC 7, as mentioned in the NIST report:

The NIST report states that between 12.10pm and 1pm, there were fires on floors 19, 22, 29 and 30. By 1pm there was no evidence of these fires on most sides of the building. Some of these floors may have been controlled by water sprinklers.

Between roughly 2pm and 5.20pm there were fires on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13. The intensity of fires on floors 11, 12 and 13 was higher, due to more combustibles.

Floors 7 and 8: The fires appeared to travel clockwise heading East from the North face.

Floor 9: There was no visible fires until around 4pm, where it appeared to start and spread from the West to the East.

Floor 11: Appeared to spread counterclockwise. For a two hour period, the images showed no visible signs of burning.

Floor 12: Similar to Floor 11, showed more signs of continous burning.

Floor 13: Similar to Floors 11 and 12. At 4.38pm, the fire had died down to the East.

Floor 14: Flames seen briefly after 5pm on the North face.

Clearly, either some FDNY members are telling lies or NIST are telling lies. Take your pick and tell me who you don't believe?

[edit on 12-12-2008 by tezzajw]

reply to post by Wildbob77


•

Barry Jennings was Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority. He was inside Tower 7 when the second plane had struck tower 2. He very clearly states he heard multiple explosions well before the collapse of Tower 7, and he barely made it out due to these exlosions.

•

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.”
Still don’t believe there’s ANY evidence of BLAST SOUND?
How about radio transmissions and testimony from FDNY members themselves.

firefightersfor911truth.org...
Who is lying ?

reply to post by tezzajw



You're dealing with the impressions of firefighters who were on the site. So you get statements that might not be the complete view of the situation but it was their impression at that time.

If you put all the information from the firefighters together then you have a more complete version of what was happening at specific points of time.

If you and ten other people.were to witness an accident and then give your statements to the police, do you think that they would all be identical? Peoples perceptions and memories will vary even when they have all seen the same thing.