A firefigher says pull it in a WTC 7 video...

Listne to the audio and pay attention to what is said, it matches official accounts.

This video shows the smoke and the intesity of the fires in WTC 7, and it also has audio of 'pulling' everyone out, which tells us that this wording is used to withdraw fire fighters and not jsut set off demo charges.

link to video

This shows how many floors were engulfed and the damage, and the people in the video talking about clearing everyone. The FDNY, NYPD and PA were pulling everyone out to a collapse zone becasue tey knew it was unsafe, but people were still looking for survivors.

So we have 'pull them' and heavy damage shown in one video. This along with all of the eyewitness accounts. The seismic evidence for WTC 7 show that there were parts falling on the inside, and when it collpased it did not collapse into itself, but to the southeast corner, the one that is described by utiple firefighters in this site


link to site

Now tell me, are al of these guys lying?

Exact PULL THEM NOT PULL IT.
Its a huge difference.
So why did Nist have to doctor the images of the damages?
You actually debunked yourself if you watch closely the damages are not consistent with the picture of the Nist report.
So are you lying in posting fake videos or is Nist lying?
I guess you are a good guy and I tend to believe that Nist lied and not you.
Or did you lie and are you a conspiracy nut?






[edit: reduced image size]
Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Nice video, dad. While I think the video indeed shows a logical explanation for what happened to 7, you aren't going to change any minds, unfortunately. Even if the firefighter in the video said "pull it" in reference to the rescue/recovery operation, it still would not be enough to sate "truthers".

Here is some information for those adamant about the demo theory. I'm sure it's the millionth time it's been posted, but have a look. If this doesn't register as a blow to the WTC7 conspiracy theory, nothing will.

I am not here to change minds, just try to show that it is alot of smoke, mirrors and carefully worded information that is easily digested by the masses. It has created a movement that is not helping find the truth but destroying the foundation of our country.

Our country gained nothing on 9/11 but another war to fight on 2 fronts. One against terror, and one that will tear it's own citizens apart.

Pull it refers to the 'operation'. Pull it, and stop the rescue effort. It is not a HUGE difference.

NIST did not doctor images.I am not lying by posting a video that is very clear, not all pixelated and contains good audio.

Pia, you are a pisser man.

Originally posted by esdad71
This shows how many floors were engulfed and the damage

Engulfed in what? Smoke? I didn't see a single flame, and I don't see any real damage either. Not saying there wasn't any, but I don't know what you're talking about when you say you can see it.

Pulling people out of the building ahead of time doesn't mean it wasn't demolished, either. The two are totally unrelated, as people would have been "pulled" from the building regardless.

Sorry, I forgot to add this link.

link to information on WTC 7

Bsbray, what do you think is causing that smoke? It isn't thermite, it is flames on the inside of the building. So if you see no flames you feel there is no danger to the structure?

Hearing a FDNY use the term 'pull' is significant since it is a major key to the WTC 7 demo theory and what Silverstien said. Pull it refers to pull the operation that is in place. I mean, do you think Silverstien, as devious as he is, would risk saying that?

Originally posted by esdad71
Bsbray, what do you think is causing that smoke? It isn't thermite, it is flames on the inside of the building. So if you see no flames you feel there is no danger to the structure?

We have a clear view of almost all sides of the building but one, and almost no flames are visible, yet still someone tries to argue the entire building was engulfed in some raging inferno. I would say there's room for some skepticism right there.

Originally posted by esdad71
Hearing a FDNY use the term 'pull' is significant since it is a major key to the WTC 7 demo theory and what Silverstien said. Pull it refers to pull the operation that is in place. I mean, do you think Silverstien, as devious as he is, would risk saying that?

No it's not significant. Nobody was arguing that "pulling them out" wasn't used by firefighters. Ofcourse it is. Everyone uses the term "pull" in various ways. But the important part is what comes after it and the context it is used in. In Silversteins case, the context and "it" both point to the building.

And not devious enough? He was complicit in the murder of 3000 of his fellow Americans. Shall I continue?

Listen to the firefighter say hole in the building.

Originally posted by piacenza





[edit: reduced image size]
Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Nice pic. I think it warrants a thread of it's own. As far as "pull it". BsBray's right. They would have "pulled" everything away anyway, so IMO the "pull it" arguement is not worth the effort anymore. It's a he said she said.

Originally posted by esdad71
Bsbray, what do you think is causing that smoke?

Any firefighter can tell you that a lot smoke doesn't mean a lot of fire. A relatively small flame can smolder and smoke and produce a lot of soot.

Unfortunately, smoke won't collapse anything. And it doesn't take much studying of skyscraper fires to realize it takes a LOT of heat (not just fire, HEAT) over HOURS to cause any damage to steel frames.

Hearing a FDNY use the term 'pull' is significant since it is a major key to the WTC 7 demo theory

Not for me.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Listen to the firefighter say hole in the building.

Unless I missed a part, someone says about a globe in the middle of the crater. That's WTC 6 I believe. I could be wrong though.

Originally posted by Shroomery
In Silversteins case, the context and "it" both point to the building.

You honestly believe he was talking about demolishing the building with his "pull it" comment? You really believe that?

Why would he say that, knowing people were going to hear it? I mean, that's lightyears beyond putting your foot in your mouth.

Even if you think Silverstein was involved, I just don't see how you can believe that comment meant anything. Why would he admit to it where everyone could hear? If I was involved in that, you could bet your ass I wouldn't say a PEEP.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Why would he say that, knowing people were going to hear it? I mean, that's lightyears beyond putting your foot in your mouth.

Why did W say he saw the FIRST TOWER GET HIT before he went into the classroom (Hint: the footage had not yet been aired) and he thought "...man, that must be one bad pilot."?

Who the hell knows WHY Silverstein said it... only he knows and it would be "unprovable" unless he admitted what it meant.

Here is the Rabbit jumping into every thread, posing a mountain of questions but never providing any answers when challenged.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Pootie
Why did W say he saw the FIRST TOWER GET HIT before he went into the classroom (Hint: the footage had not yet been aired) and he thought "...man, that must be one bad pilot."?

He said: "I saw a plane hit the tower."

That's grammatically incorrect Southern-talk for, "I saw that a plane had hit the tower."

He wasn't saying he saw the plane hit the tower.

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Originally posted by Shroomery
In Silversteins case, the context and "it" both point to the building.

You honestly believe he was talking about demolishing the building with his "pull it" comment? You really believe that?

Why would he say that, knowing people were going to hear it? I mean, that's lightyears beyond putting your foot in your mouth.

Even if you think Silverstein was involved, I just don't see how you can believe that comment meant anything. Why would he admit to it where everyone could hear? If I was involved in that, you could bet your ass I wouldn't say a PEEP.

Why did Rumsfeld talk about a missile?

Maybe Silverstein didn't know it was going to be covered up and assumed he had no reason to keep his mouth about it.

Originally posted by Shroomery
Why did Rumsfeld talk about a missile?

That one just sounded like a bad choice of words to me.

Now, the Cheney thing with the "shot down" remark, now that sounds suspicious to me.

Sorry to go off topic. I haven't seen the video yet because I'm at work, but…

Originally posted by esdad71
Sorry, I forgot to add this link.

link to information on WTC 7

I have seen this site before and have to question it. They start out in the first paragraph saying...

But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse.

But in the graphic they use to support the claim of debris hitting WTC7 doesn't point out any exterior columns near 7 like for other buildings. Only Cladding.



As far as I know cladding is not the same as exterior columns, so why do they say one thing, but show another?

Originally posted by whiterabbit
He said: "I saw a plane hit the tower."

That's grammatically incorrect Southern-talk for, "I saw that a plane had hit the tower."

I've lived in very rural areas of Virginia for a big chunk of my life, and am familiar with very bad grammar, and if someone told me they saw a plane hit a building, I would think they saw a plane hit a building, 100%. Somebody might say "I saw where a plane hit the building", or "I saw/seen they're trying to ___" or "going to ___" (in the case of watching the news in general), but you wouldn't say "I saw ____" unless you saw it. And I bet if you find similar instances of Bush saying where he's seen something, you'll see that what I'm saying is right.

Saying you saw something that you didn't see isn't just bad grammar, it's lying. Even Rednecks know what a lie is. And the implications of him actually having seen it are worse.

Rumsfeld also said that Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania. Either these guys are totally out of touch with the events their lives revolve around, or else they know things you don't want to know, and are too senile/nonchalant to dumb it down for you all the time.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by whiterabbit
He said: "I saw a plane hit the tower."

That's grammatically incorrect Southern-talk for, "I saw that a plane had hit the tower."

He wasn't saying he saw the plane hit the tower.

I love the junk you make up to "debunk". How on EARTH can you even pretend to know what W, Rummy or Silverstein MEANT? You have to twist their words in order to make it fit your story.

I take the actual quotes, word for word, at face value. Who is grasping at straws?

You THINK you MIGHT know what they COULD have MEANT if you CHANGE their WORDS to fit your idea.

I just post EXACTLY what they said and it implicates them.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by esdad711) This video shows the smoke and the intesity of the fires in WTC 7

2) This shows how many floors were engulfed and the damage,

3) So we have 'pull them' and heavy damage shown in one video.

4) The seismic evidence for WTC 7 show that there were parts falling on the inside,

5) and when it collpased it did not collapse into itself, but to the southeast corner, the one that is described by utiple firefighters in this site

1) Yes, how much smoke came from the burning 5 & 6 WTC's?

2) I saw only 2, maybe 3. Wow.

3) I must a missed the heavy damage to the building in that video.

4) Yes, cause when you pull a building, you pull the inards first so the rest can fall in on itself.

5) No, it collapsed in on itself with SOME falling beyond it's footprint. It was the TALLEST building in history that has ever been demo'd bottom down. You can't expect them to be 100% perfect.