The Short and Sweet thread.

It does exactly what it says on the tin, a thread for those meaningful pointers but lack sustenance to warrant their own thread, here`s a starter...

Larry Silverstein = Silverstein Properties = one of the largest property developers in America = how much land must have this guy bought over the years = developers develop land mostly houses or offices = sometimes this land has derelict buildings that need demolishing = how familiar is he with the term `Pull it`? = property developers see more controlled demolitions than any other professions in the world, apart from the c/d dudes themselves = nearly every single building ever brought down is done so to clear the area for re-developing = how familiar is he with the term `Pull it` as used to remove firemen from buildings about to collapse?.

reply to post by Seventh

Silverstein Sues

March 8 (Bloomberg) -- World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey sued Ground Zero insurer Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Group Plc and its former U.S. unit for $1 billion in unpaid claims and damages.

Silverstein and the Port Authority, owner of the 16-acre trade center site and the planned Freedom Tower, want $250 million in unpaid insurance claims from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and a further $750 million in punitive damages. The lawsuit was filed Feb. 23.

Their hearts are bleeding for the victims. The money is insignificant and immaterial, right? Right!

Originally posted by Seventh
how familiar is he with the term `Pull it` as used to remove firemen from buildings about to collapse?.

If he was referring to a group of people or a unit or whatever, he would have said, "Pull them out of there!", "Get them out of there!" or something along those lines. You don't use "it" to refer to a group of people, you use "it" to refer to an inanimate object, something like...I don't know...a building perhaps!

Plus the line before that was something like...we've seen enough death and destruction today so it made sense to pull it. Didn't he then go on to say something like, so we made the decision to pull it and then we watched as the building came down?

Why his insurance company didn't demand a full investigation I'll never know. Maybe they were told not to make a fuss or maybe the money to pay Lucky Larry came from another source to keep him quiet. Someone told him to change his story so he must know something and the way he's been claiming more money and filing law suits willy nilly, it would seem like he's confidently got someone over a barrel!

Originally posted by Seventh
Larry Silverstein = Silverstein Properties = one of the largest property developers in America = how much land must have this guy bought over the years = developers develop land mostly houses or offices = sometimes this land has derelict buildings that need demolishing = how familiar is he with the term `Pull it`? = property developers see more controlled demolitions than any other professions in the world, apart from the c/d dudes themselves = nearly every single building ever brought down is done so to clear the area for re-developing = how familiar is he with the term `Pull it` as used to remove firemen from buildings about to collapse?.

I looked up his bio, and nowhere can I find where he ever bought property that required heavy demolitions. He either bought undeveloped property or, as in the case of the WTC complex, that was already fully developed. Thus, I don't see how he would be be knowledgable about controlled demolitions at all. The question is, however, how the heck do you think the NYFD would have expertise in controlled demolitions, becuase they were the ones he supposedly told to go blow up the towers to begin with.

Silverstein's office specifically sais that the phrase "pull it" referred to cancelling the fire fighting operation becuase there was already massive loss of life as it was, and none of your conspiracy web sites have conclusively presented anything which shows he meant anything else, so that is what I have to believe he meant.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Tell you what Dave, let`s look at WTC7 from a different angle - Live news feed gives an explicit detailed account, people being asked to move a few blocks away as it was going to fall, and then boom it fell, just as described in the live news feed, read by a female anchor from an autocue, which was loaded with the report, sounds just about right.. Until, this particular news report was read 23 minutes before it happened exactly as described, you will tell me this happens all the time, it does not and there has never been an incident anywhere like it.

Someone somewhere had wrote that autocued report, and what happens next as soon as a report is sent to a news broadcasting live on the spot team Dave?, it is checked for authenticity, so it happens all the time, if you find me an identical case scenario I will send a 1000 dollars to your favorite charity and that is my oath, okay the points.......

1). Live news feed on the spot team.

2). Reading the report from an autocue = has been authenticated.

3). Reads the incorrect report for over 7 minutes.

4). Satellite link is lost, then 5 minutes later the exact same thing that was just reported - happens.

5). They actual theme that they are reporting about, can be clearly seen in the background.

Debunkers gleefully remind us it happens every day, okay then, should be simple finding a good few exact happenings, I know how much you want to make my wallet lighter to the tune of $1k dollars Dave, go for it .

#1. You don't need to call the owner of a building to remove people from a dangerous environment.

IE: A burning building

#2. WTC7 was hardly burning and 'out of control'.



"Ummm boss, it's kinda hot in here. Can we get out?"

"Hang tight Joey, I'm on the phone with Larry, we'll have to wait and
see what he says about your safety."

Originally posted by Seventh
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Tell you what Dave, let`s look at WTC7 from a different angle - Live news feed gives an explicit detailed account, people being asked to move a few blocks away as it was going to fall, and then boom it fell, just as described in the live news feed, read by a female anchor from an autocue, which was loaded with the report, sounds just about right.. Until, this particular news report was read 23 minutes before it happened exactly as described, you will tell me this happens all the time, it does not and there has never been an incident anywhere like it.

If you're referring to the BBC broadcast, rather than trying to speculate how their conspiracy just have to fit into all these other conspiracies, did you ever actually look to see what *their* response is to all these accusations levelled against them?

BBC response to accusations of collusion

Is seems to me that rather than "looking at WTC 7 from a different angle", it seems to me you're looking at it via the exact same angle- you're relying on these conspiracy websites for all your information, and all they're doing is dropping ridiculous "isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)" innuendo exactly like this to instigate false public unrest for their own personal gain, just like ten thousand other websites are doing. None of these conspiracy web sites have shown anything but innuendo to prove the BBC had actual foreknowledge of the collapse of 9/11, for the obvious reason they don't have anything BUT innuendo to show us.

Again, in lieu of their providing us something other than, well, nothing, I'm going to have to take the word of BBC editors who say that a reporter bewildered by so many catastrophic events had reported the collapse in error, only to have the error turn out to be a reality minutes later.



[edit on 18-9-2009 by GoodOlDave]

Originally posted by turbofan
#1. You don't need to call the owner of a building to remove people from a dangerous environment.

If you're gonna go that route, then I need to remind you that the fire department wouldn't call the owner of a building to ask politely if they can blow up a building that's causing the dangerous environment, either. They'd just blow it up before someone got killed and then tell the owners to talk to their lawyers.

FYI you forgot the obvious question- when the heck did the NYFD, or any other fire department in the world for that matter, ever train how to blow up buildings via controlled demilitions to begin with?

#2. WTC7 was hardly burning and 'out of control'.

Yes it was. Don't even go there.

One thing I'd like to know is - how did fires at different levels of the building, even get started in Building 7?

reply to post by OmegaPoint

One thing I'd like to know is - how did fires at different levels of the building, even get started in Building 7?

Burning debris from WTC 1

South side of WTC 7 was slashed opened for at least 10 floors by the
debris from WTC 1 (North Tower)

Fires were started on multiplle floors

Once the fires developed, according to witness accounts and photo evidence gathered in the NIST investigation, there were confirmed fires on at least 16 floors: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30.

Once the fires were started would spread - the water supply for WTC 7
was out and sprinklers were inoperable

Can see in these videos

www.911myths.com...

Watch progression of fire across north face (side away from debris
damage) in videos 9, 10, 11

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Silverstein's office specifically sais that the phrase "pull it" referred to cancelling the fire fighting operation...........so that is what I have to believe he meant.

Do you "have to believe" everything people tell you GoodOlDave?

If you open your mind, start thinking for yourself and use common sense, you might find these things harder to believe!

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave, In your personal opinion, what do you think brought building 7 down?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Is seems to me that rather than "looking at WTC 7 from a different angle", it seems to me you're looking at it via the exact same angle- you're relying on these conspiracy websites for all your information, and all they're doing is dropping ridiculous "isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)" innuendo exactly like this to instigate false public unrest for their own personal gain, just like ten thousand other websites are doing. None of these conspiracy web sites have shown anything but innuendo to prove the BBC had actual foreknowledge of the collapse of 9/11, for the obvious reason they don't have anything BUT innuendo to show us.

Again, in lieu of their providing us something other than, well, nothing, I'm going to have to take the word of BBC editors who say that a reporter bewildered by so many catastrophic events had reported the collapse in error, only to have the error turn out to be a reality minutes later.



[edit on 18-9-2009 by GoodOlDave]

Dear oh dear Dave, honestly, firstly, check any of my threads and point out I use CT sites for research and evidence, my last few threads were based on.....

1). FEMA and NIST`s photographs.

2). Naudet Video CNN release.

3). Watching videos through editing software.

4). Silverstein`s profession and the odds on him in over 50 years of property developing to have never come across the term `Pull it`.

So once again your personal opinions on how?, why?, when? are completely unfounded and incorrect.

The B.B.C. let`s look at the whole scenario and sit and think why the B.B.C. fed us with absolute bull crap whilst covering their mistakes, live feed codes of work and practise...

1). Set up a base station.

2). With appropriate anchors for news coverage in both on the spot and base station scenarios.

3). Only one of two ways to broadcast reports here, now the B.B.C. controller would be hugely annoyed if his live team had missed such a big story as WTC7 collapsing, no videos etc from the front line, absolutely no excuse whatsoever here as to why an on the spot live team would not have any videos or photos, even though there was an exclusion zone around WTC7, it would be extremely suspicious on how an on the spot live team had completely missed such a story arising from where the basis of them being there in the 1st place, heralded from.

So back to how a live feed works, the report comes in, it is checked and put into the autocue and the anchor then reads it, so everyone here at base station must think it somewhat odd that anyone from their team has no video footage or photos to accompany this report?.

How did an intricate report slip by everyone in the team and who authenticated the report and went on to let it be broadcast for over 7 minutes?.

So a huge mistake by the B.B.C. that could have led to a stringent investigation and exposing the whole fiasco that it was, the B.B.C. are going to release what kind of statement relating to all this, bearing in mind it would also expose them as part and parcel of the whole operation?.

But it is obviously once again down to the CT`s for blowing all this out of proportion and of course the whole fiasco bears no relevant importance, when the actual facts are really plain and simple, for one broadcast no matter how long, it involves everyone whom was in the B.B.C live team once it has hit air, quickly demeaned to the `Ooops, what a blunder, newscaster on air blunders category`, and archived as such.

No matter what, that report must have originated somewhere for it to be broadcast, obviously from a tried and trusted source, who sent it, who authenticated it?, who let it be broadcast under the assumption it was bona fide material?.

Just remember this Dave the answers to any of the above questions will not involve one *truther* i`ll guarantee that.

An on the spot live broadcast team with state of the art technology, release a huge report from a half mile away from the incident with no on the spot film crew capturing it?, yet no one whatsoever batted an eyelid.

What was you expecting the B.B.C. to say Dave?... `Ooops sorry America I guess we just well and truly *%$£%* your false flag operation up, our sincerest apologies, but never mind get us back in 4 years in London`. Maybe?.

Originally posted by Mark_Amy


Do you "have to believe" everything people tell you GoodOlDave?

Of course not. That's why I always put all the claims comign from the conspiracy people under a microscope, becuase it seems to me that every single time, they're leaving out some incredibly important detail that, if they had told us, it would actually prove the exact opposite of what they're saying.

Case in point- this "Pull it" bit from Silverstein. I know from talking to actual firefighters that "pull it" actually IS a firefighter term to extract personnel from a dangerous area. It goes back to the days before radio, where firefighters would give the hoses a good shart pull as a signal to the firemen inside. On the other hand, the phrase "pull it" in demolitions means to pull it down AS IN WITH CABLES, like how they demolished WTC 6. It's not lingo for anything, it's the description of the actual act.

The major part the truthers conveniently ignore is that Silverstein didn't do any pulling himself. He was telling firefighter command to do the pulling. So, which do YOU think firefighters would be more familiar with, getting firefighters out of a dangerous area or yanking down unstable buildings with cables?

THEN, there's the weirdest part of all- whatever you happen to believe his real meaning was, it's not for debate that his motive for doing so was to save lives. Why the heck would he bother to cover it up???

If you open your mind, start thinking for yourself and use common sense, you might find these things harder to believe!

How is it common sense to claim that the NYFD are experts in controlled demolitions, exactly?