Reply With Quote
Yes, actually, I have come to believe that about people who believe in this bull .
I question a lot of things, but tell me, have you ever put ANY level of scrutiny or skepticism to the things you seem to have read about in these conspiracy theories?
But since dan tried to change the subject to 6 to avoid admitting he's a liar, I'll take the opportunity to educate twoofers about the meaning of the word "pull" regarding building demolition.
Now back to dan -- can you admit you told a flat out lie in the above post when you said the buildings next door to WTC 7 had no damage?
Yes, actually, I have come to believe that about people who believe in this bull .
I question a lot of things, but tell me, have you ever put ANY level of scrutiny or skepticism to the things you seem to have read about in these conspiracy theories?
"pull it"? Debunked.
The quote was "THEY made the decision to pull it". They being the fire department and "pull it" being pull the firefighters out of a building on fire with no water to actually fight it.
Larry Silverstein's "Pull it" quote
Contents
Main 9/11 Links Page
“This building—the last to fall on 9-11—is key to all controlled-demolition theories. Its sudden fall onto its own footprint, and developer Larry Silverstein's reference on TV to telling the FDNY to "pull it," are seen as evidence that WTC7 was rigged to fall.” –911truth.org Keep in mind that this misrepresentation comes from is one of the leading organizations of the 9/11 “Truth Movement.” (This is a national organization, not to be confused with ny911truth.org, already mentioned.)
Larry Silverstein was the owner of the 47-story WTC building 7, which collapsed on 9/11, and he owns the new 52-story building 7, which opened in May, 2006 on the site of the old building. He was the leaseholder on most of the other WTC buildings, including the Twin Towers (the property is owned by The Port of New York and New Jersey Authority). He won the right to the 99-year lease only six weeks before September 11, 2001, after a long public bidding process.
During an interview in 2002 for the PBS do entary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, Mr. Silverstein said this about the fate of building 7 on 9/11:
"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 then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein
The conspiracy theorists (hereafter referred to as “CTs”) believe that Silverstein was ordering the FDNY to demolish, or to allow to be demolished, building 7.
In my experience, the CTs are in such a hurry to get to the “pull it” phrase that they neglect to read the statement carefully. While I will provide much evidence in this paper that’s intended to convince the most hardcore CT, all that’s really necessary is to apply a bit of logic to the Silverstein statement, so I’ll start by doing that.
The setting: Larry Silverstein is being interviewed by a do entary crew from PBS. He calmly, clearly describes what happened. CTs would have us believe that Silverstein accidentally let it slip – twice, for a national TV audience – that he ordered his building to be demolished! Does that make any sense whatsoever? Can the CTs give an example of a similar “accidental confession” of a monumental crime in the history of the world? Keep in mind that if Silverstein thought he had said something wrong, he could simply have asked the crew to shoot that part again. Silverstein is a very smart guy who is in full possession of his mental faculties. He didn’t “slip up.”
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander...”
That was 32-year-veteran FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, who was in charge of the World Trade Center incident following Chief of Department Peter Ganci’s death in the collapse of the north tower. Silverstein was at home with his wife when he received the courtesy call from Chief Nigro in the afternoon.
Update
Whomever Silverstein spoke with, it wasn't Chief Nigro. As reported by "Ref" at the JREF forum, Chief Nigro did not speak with Silverstein:
"I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it." Source
“...telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire...”
That’s correct, as we will see in great detail below.
“...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'”
Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein saying,
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”
or was he saying,
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?
Be honest, CTs. Which statement makes sense, and which is completely absurd?
Next, did Larry Silverstein, a real estate developer, have the world’s largest fire department at his beck and call? Of course not. Larry Silverstein had no say in how firefighting operations in New York City were conducted. He may have liked to think that Chief Nigro was calling him for a consultation, but that idea is laughable. It was a courtesy call.
“And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Who made the decision to pull? They. The fire department. Not “Me,” not “We.” They. This is ridiculously obvious to anyone but a CT. Does the FDNY demolish buildings with explosives? No, they pull their people away from buildings that are too dangerous to be near. The “we” in “we watched the building collapse” is Silverstein and his wife. Silverstein was not at the WTC site.
Now that we’ve seen what Silverstein actually said, let’s see how his statement is represented by leaders of the “Truth Movement.”
James Fetzer
James Fetzer, co-chairman of “Scholars for 9/11 Truth,” and long-time JFK assassination conspiracy theorist, interviewed on Alan Colmes’ radio show, June, 2006:
Fetzer: Larry Silverstein, in New York, actually directed the World Trade Center Number 7 be pulled, meaning brought down by controlled demolition.
Colmes: Wasn’t he the landlord? Why would he want that to happen?
Fetzer: Well, it’s recorded. He admitted it in an interview that he had it pulled. Now, just to make an obvious point, Alan, it can’t have been pulled unless there were pre-positioned explosives in World Trade Center 7—
Colmes: What would be Larry Silverstein’s interest in destroying his own building?
Fetzer: He had insured it for $3.5 billion against a terrorist attack six weeks previous.
Colmes: So he’s in on this?
Fetzer: Absolutely. Later in that interview: I can prove all of these things, it’s the only hy-pothesis that makes any sense and in many cases we have direct evidence, we have Silverstein’s admission that he directed that the building be pulled. That was at 5:20 in the afternoon, it had been hit by no aircraft, it had only very modest fires, that was an extremely robustly built building— Keep in mind that Jim Fetzer is one of the leaders of the 9/11 “Truth Movement.”
Update: James Fetzer has split with “Scholars” co-chairman Steven E. Jones, and has been promoting the claim that “high-energy beams” destroyed the WTC buildings. I couldn’t make this up if I tried.
Kevin Barrett
Kevin Barett, who is on the Board of Directors of Fetzer’s “Scholars for 9/11 Truth,” starts his website with the words “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” But within that site, Barrett repeatedly bears false witness against Larry Silverstein, and he has refused to correct his errors. Following is a summary of communications I’ve had with Barett:
From: Mark Roberts [email protected] Date: Oct 12, 2006
Subject: Serious errors on your website.
To: [email protected]
Dear Kevin,
In reviewing your website mujca.com, I noticed a particularly baffling passage on the first page (now this page):
"9/11 insurance-fraudster Larry Silverstein, like the Poe narrator, was apparently confounded by the noise of his own lying heartbeat when he confessed on national TV to making "a decision to pull (WTC-7)...and we made that decision to pull, and we watched the building col-lapse." Silverstein's inability to get anything built on the site during the past five years, leaving a gigantic bomb crater screaming silently to the world that the WTC was destroyed by bombs, not by planes, is another, far more eloquent confession. To borrow a phrase from the Loose Change logo, Larry's bomb crater is "louder than words." Perhaps the best possible memorial would be to leave the site exactly the way it is, and hold a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Larry Silverstein Memorial Bomb Crater."
Several corrections need to be made here:
1) "Insurance-fraudster." I am not aware of Silverstein having done anything illegal involving WTC insurance, and apparently neither are the insurance companies. If you have evidence of such wrongdoing, which would be front page news in New York, please present it. If not, you should retract the accusation.
2) "We made that decision to pull." Kevin, this is a particularly egregious error. I shouldn't have to remind you that the quote is "And they made that decision to pull." Here is the exact quote:
"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 then we watched the building collapse."
Since you are a questioning sort, answer this one:
Is it possible that the BBC report was simply an error made by someone in a large confusing event?
actually there was no one in building 7.
and if he said "pull it" would be bad grammar even for a 10 yr old.
if he really was reffering to "firefighters" he would have said "pull out"
You keep using that word.and if he said "pull it"
I do not think you know what it means.
I gave you a video and everything....
And, for the mentally re ed, here is what an implosion (via explosives) sounds like
i know and how does that help the official story?
somebody should "pull it" this thread
It doesn't, nor does it need to. It merely obliterates the notion that "pull" has anything to do with explosive demolition.
Perhaps one of the biggest problems with the "controlled demolition" theory as presented here is that it makes liars out of most of the NYFD.
http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigroThis is a message from Chief of Department (ret.) Daniel Nigro, addressing the conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse of WTC7. Thank you very much for this statement, Mr. Nigro. The work you and your colleagues did will never be forgotten.
Release date: September 23, 2007
Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Ins ute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:
1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.
Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.
Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)
Mr. Nigro has written several statements about the collapse of WTC7.
For Galileo or whomever:
Is he part of the conspiracy to cover up the demolition? Is he actively lying?
Question: Who here trusts a guy named Nigro?
After years of hard work (presumably using their intense blood, sweat, and tears), NIST has issued a final report that fire caused the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Their work though was apparently focused on how to somehow validate their previous statements rather than to actually study the known facts. Most of the important “facts” now known about this collapse NIST continues to prefer to simply ignore.
Has the general population of our country been dumbed down enough to believe the above report? NIST claims their research team included 50 experts from diverse fields “including engineering, explosives, fire, and construction”. On the other hand, over 400 professional architects and engineers see things differently. In a news conference immediately following the NIST report, Richard Gage and others expose obvious factual evidence that NIST pretended to not exist. The web site set up by this group uses robust science to show that WTC-7 collapsed by controlled demolition. Anyone who has watched a controlled demolition can see it. Fire does not turn steel buildings into dust – it's a fact of life and science.
What are you saying, dan? Are you accusing the chief of the FDNY of lying and being a part of your still unposted conspiracy theory?Question: Who here trusts a guy named Nigro?
And why did you post a video of Cenk saying he believes the NIST report?
And finally, can you admit you told a flat out lie in the post where you said the buildings next door to WTC 7 had no damage?
As someone who was trained in the use of explosives, I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
Try not to strain your ribs from laughing too hard...
...Well, he was refering to stomach gas....
The "dust" thing again.
Tell me Dan where were the distinct sounds that should have been audible for miles?
Tell me dan where are the glass shards propelled for miles from the site?
This magic explosive can make "dust" out of concrete, but they magically don't propel acres of glass outwards at thousands of feet per second and don't make enough sound to be heard distinctly for dozens of miles.
Much like the sounds of REAL controlled demolitions do:
9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible
Maybe Dan will utter the phrase "free-fall" again.
9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed
The tower fall speeds I quoted were from the 911 commission report idiot....you saying they lied too now?
But Larry Silverstein said "pull it"
What free fall speeds were that dan?
The tower fall speeds I quoted were from the 911 commission report idiot....you saying they lied too now?
I think I missed that part.
You want simple math? Try Boolean algebra
but but it wasn't actually explosives... it was THERMATE!
9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven
Pretty bad form trying to use a political do ent for purposes of your "scientific" argument.
The tower fall speeds I quoted were from the 911 commission report idiot....you saying they lied too now?
I wouldn't be surprised if the commission report simply described the time taken for the first debris to hit the ground -- you know all that stuff that was falling outside the towers at actual free fall speed, faster than the towers themselves.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
