here is Larry Silverstein saying 'pull (ie demo) wtc 7...'

[pretzel4gore]

re-posted from GNN, thanx....found on Alex Jones presents
>
Jeremy Baker

In a stunning and belated development concerning the attacks of 9/11 Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.

This admission appeared in a PBS documentary originally aired in Sept. of 2002 entitled "America Rebuilds". Mr Silverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society of Civil Engineers conducted an extensive and costly investigation into the curious collapse of WTC 7. The study specifically concluded that the building had collapsed as a result of the inferno within, sparked, apparently, by debris falling from the crumbling North Tower.

In the documentary Silverstein makes the following statement;

I remember getting a call from the, er, 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 we watched the building collapse.
http://www.infowars.com/audio/PullIt.mp3 Thanks to Sir Dave 'tmo' Soule for transfering this from the video to an MP3 file. "America Rebuilds", PBS Home Video, ISBN 0-7806-4006-3, is available from http://shop.pbs.org/products/AREB901/.>

Mr. Silverstein's comments stand in direct contradiction to the findings of the extensive FEMA report. They even negate Kevin Spacey's narrative in the very documentary in which they appear; "WTC 7 fell after burning for 7 hours." If it had been generally known that the building was "pulled" wouldn't Mr. Spacey have phrased it that way?

In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context.

http://www.infowars.com/audio/PullIt2.mp3 taken from the video.>
<

[dave123williams]

1. I think they just let it keep burning...

FDNY had already lost 330 guys to this thing; people were putting lives head of property that day...too bad it didn't last.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. No, it's Silverstein saying "pull (i.e., stop fighting fires in) WTC 7"

I don't know how many times this needs to be explained.

"Pull" is firefighter slang for "stop fighting the fire in a dangerous building". It refers to the method of alerting firefighters of such a decision in the days before radio - they would pull on the hose being used to fight the fire. It was a signal to abandon that particular battle.

There is no question that "pull" is also slang for demolition. But the context of Larry Silverstein's phrase isn't an unrelated statement much later in that program. Silverstein's context is this: he's talking to the fire department commander, the fire couldn't be contained, his reason for saying "pull" is based on the terrible loss of life, they (the fire department, with Silverstein's thus-obtained blessing) made the decision to pull, and then (notice the passive structure of the statement) they watched the building collapse. Not "set the charges and took the building down" or any other active way of stating that the building was demolished...they simply watched the building collapse.

All of this true context lead reasonable people to conclude that Silverstein is referring to the firefighting use of the word "pull".

[pretzel4gore]

4. 330 firefighter was a price they gladly paid

'they' being bushinc....
it seems bizarre that anyone would say something that, on reflection, suggests foreknowlege of greatest crime in US history, but it's plain that bush used blackmail whenever they felt necessary...maybe silverstein was saying 'you guys can do me, but be careful, i'm just as crafty as you, and you'll pay dearly for it...beware asssholes...' this in relation to some other aspect of the scheme where silverstein recognized that he would be thrown to the dogs...remember john O'Neil?
i trust none of them, including the fdny bosses.....silverstein's still alive, and notice no one has asked him to explain what he meant....cuz shortly after saying 'we gonna pull it' wtc 7 WAS DEMOLISHED! it never fell of its own accord; and neither did the towers....
bush sent 100 thousand plus troops to iraq borders before UN gave a mandate: in effect, he forced congree to okay the invasion, and he tried to force the UN to also ok it....that's blackmail, and it occurred right out in public...
they're all a buncha petty crooks.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Not just I

But the fire department commander who called Silverstein. I bow to his expert knowledge.

[Lucid Code]

6. I wish people would please

stop bashing those who question how the WTC towers could have fallen with so little dammage. The bottom line is that the towers, and WTC 7 in particular were able to collapse naturally in the ways that they did constitutes the largest mystery of modern engineering and one that has barely been investigated let alone explained in detail. That in itself is a scandal and worthy of attention.

Silverstein referred to an "it" not "them". Putting his quote in this context is completely circumstantial, but it is not beyond reason.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Barely investigated?

http://wtc.nist.gov

Pull it - the firefighting operation.

[Lucid Code]

10. An understatement

My appologies. And thank you for the link.

I certainly don't consider myself an expert but I have a mind for physics and I am seriously curious about how the towers could have fallen. Some of the summaries of collapse theories (e.g. Scientific American) have come off as inaccurate and diversitory, but I will keep quiet on the matter until I learn more.

And as far as the subject of this thread is concerned I really don't want to try and divine how the building fell -- let alone the implications of that -- from a single sentence, and I feel this quote is used far too often as a way of introducing 9/11 doubts for its worth as evidence.

"Don't make a move until you see it." -- Searching for Bobby Fischer

[OneMind]

11. RE: NIST "investigation"

The investigation of the WTC “is a half-baked farce.” - Fire Engineering Magazine. Jan 2002
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225


No steel building has ever been destroyed by fire – Fire Engineering Magazine


All of the important evidence from the disaster was destroyed, illegally, and before the investigation was even concluded, some before it began! – Fire Engineering.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0f.htm


The Collapse of the WTC - Kevin Ryan, Underwriters Laboratories (Impossible for the "collapses" to have been caused by fire)
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php


“A steel building survived fires in experiments with extreme temperatures beyond the range possible with jet fuel.” - Cardington Fire Tests
http://www.corusconstruction.com/legacy/fire/images/fireres_section15.pdf


$600,000 was spent investigating the WTC collapses vs. $40 million on Clinton’s sex life.
http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/1/14_APwtcstudy.html


Building 7 at the WTC, 47 floors, steel, and constructed differently from the twin towers, fell at 5:30 but it was never hit by an airplane, had no significant fire.


Jet fuel burns at too low a temperature to significantly harm steel. The black smoke means that the fire did not reach the maximum temperature for jet fuel. Yet days later, there were “hot spots” in the building that still exceeded the maximum temperature possible from jet fuel – but not from explosives. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html


http://www.reopen911.org/

[hack89]

12. The fire was hot enough to warp steel...

The jet fuel burned off within minutes, leaving a regular building fire.

Read this excellent report by the Canadian research council on the role of fire resistance in the WTC http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/nrcc42466/nrcc42466....

According to this web site for forensic fire investigators http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html#1.3

steel loses 50% of its structural strength and sags at 550°C (1022°F) while smoldering combustion in a regular house fire can reach 600°C (1112°F)

This Canadian site http://www.cwc.ca/design/fire / says
"Steel, for instance, quickly loses its strength when heated and its yield point decreases significantly as it absorbs heat, endangering the stability of the structure (Graph 1). An unprotected, conventional steel joist system will fail in less than 10 minutes under standard laboratory fire exposure test methods"

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

17. Tell me one mind

Now, with regard to the Twin Towers, not only were the fires not hot enough or large enough to have caused the towers' collapses, the fires were not even nearly hot enough or large enough to have caused the towers' collapses. In other words, it's not even close.

Given you believe this is true, why do building codes require fireproofing on steel building. For giggles, because Uncle Joe owns a fireproofing business, or because ordinary office fires will weaken a steel structure to a dangerous level?

In a scheduled August 2003 update, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report was ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse" of the Twin Towers, but some way or another, somehow, that conclusion mysteriously vanished from the final report.

When thinking of the term 'weak', think low quality, because that is what the report was investigating.

If you want to understand how impossible, indeed, how absurd the notion that the Twin Towers or Building 7 collapsed due to fire, the following two articles are good places to begin. I recommend reading the Kevin Ryan article first. It's clear and to the point.

Kevin Ryan - Underwriters Laboratories

Kevin Ryan is most likely a well meaning person that showed the world what happens when passion outstrips knowledge. He has no clue what he's talking about and misinterpreted the reports he was using as his basis.

[OneMind]

18. Thanks for the laughs.

[LARED]

21. Very compelling response.

[Make7]

25. desplome

OneMind wrote:
See Hotel Windsor fire in Madrid burn much more fiercely for 24 hours and not collapse
http://www.elmundo.es/documentos/2005/02/windsor/index.html

I'm sure you noticed the caption on this pic about the first collapse of part of the building occurring.

---

How about before and after pictures for comparison:

• Picture from summer of 2003.
  
  
• Picture of collapse damage after the fire.
  

I'm a little bit curious - did the fire cause that part of the building to collapse? Or was it a controlled demolition?

:) Make7

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Lots of links to 2002

It's now 2005, and the NIST study (not even underway at that time) now has been exhaustively studying all three collapses. Nothing that they've found indicates a controlled demolition in any way.

Sorry I can't do a link dump, but the one is all I need:

http://wtc.nist.gov

Check out the interim report. If you think WTC 7 had no significant fire, you don't have all the facts.

[Lucid Code]

22. The NIST and FEMA studies

were inconclusive as to the cause of the collapse, and are hardly exhaustive considering the profile of the case and the continued uncertainty. They also conclude (though never directly state) that total collapse of the tower was difficult, though hardly impossible, through natural causes, but hardly the "inevitability" and what "one would naturally expect to occur" that is implied by debunking propaganda.

The consensus is that the most likely point of initiating collapse was due to a large fire somewhere between the 3rd and 6th floors, where "evaluation ... is complicated by the fact that these floors were windowless with louvers, generally in a plenum space separating any direct line of sight between the open floor space and the louvers. None of the photographic records found so far show fires on these floors." (from http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf)

That such fires existed is a theory, not a fact. And further theorizing is required to explain the 7 hour gap between the fall of WTC 1 and WTC 7.

You also shouldn't expect such research to objectively study the possibility of foul play -- at least not publicly.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. The NIST study is still in progress

And the head of the study is very careful to say that they have not concluded anything yet, but they do have a working hypothesis that's holding up well to the tests.

WTC 7 appears to be a classic progressive collapse.

[he lied us into war]

35. Some people claim he said "pull out" not "pull it"-- eom

eom

[Bolo Boffin]

36. IMO, Silverstein says "pull it".

If he'd said "pull out", there would have been a equal stress on both of those words. But "pull" is much stronger than the second word. So I hear "pull it."

[OneMind]

9. Hmmm....

boloboffin wrote:

"Pull" is firefighter slang for "stop fighting the fire in a dangerous building". It refers to the method of alerting firefighters of such a decision in the days before radio - they would pull on the hose being used to fight the fire. It was a signal to abandon that particular battle.

Do you reckon the fire department commander who called Larry Silverstein decided the firefighters should "abandon that particular battle", as you put it?

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Yes, I do.

I think that's why he was calling Silverstein. He was telling the building's owner that they weren't going to be able to contain the fire and that the resources were needed elsewhere. Silverstein recognized the hopeless battle and gave his blessing to the decision - which was made by the firefighters.

And then they watched the building collapse.

That's my take on it.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Read the NIST interim report - the FEMA report is out of date.

The WTC towers didn't just fall because of fire - their structures were compromised by those planes flying into them. Remember those?

And WTC 7 had two of the largest buildings on earth fall into it - there was extensive damage to that building as well and major fires.

It's all in the interim report. Reasonable people will consider all the facts. Go find out what the facts are - read the interim report.

Regardless of whether firefighters were in the building or not, they were trying to contain that fire. Firefighting operations were underway regarding WTC 7, and that operation was what was pulled. The commander wasn't psychic - he just had a reasonable fear (justified) that the building could fall.

And there's no indication that the Silverman phone call happened five minutes before the building fell, so you really should asserting that that's the case. For all we know, it could have been five hours.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Make7]

24. What was the length of time between the call and.....

the collapse of WTC7?

-Make7

[number6]

23. false.

"And WTC 7 had two of the largest buildings on earth fall into it - there was extensive damage to that building as well and major fires."

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Read the interim reports

There were major fires within and extensive damage to WTC 7 after the collapse of the two towers. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

[number6]

28. look at the photos of Building 7

"extensive damage to WTC 7 " no

to WTC 5 and 6, which didn't collapse like 7 did, by the way ...

[Bolo Boffin]

29. The pictures of 7 we've seen so far

don't include the south face, which is where the extensive damage to 7 was. NIST has several interviews we don't have access to yet.

Were 5 and 6 equipped with the diesal fuel dumps that 7 had? Did they suffer the same major fires that 7 did?

You and other controlled demolition advocates are of course well within your rights to ignore and denigrate the NIST study. But when you make statements like this, it's clear that you do so without giving their ongoing study even a cursory glance.

[OneMind]

3. RE: Building 7

WTC7.net - Home
http://www.wtc7.net/index.html

WTC7.net - Contents
http://www.wtc7.net/contents.html


Videos
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

More Videos
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

30. First video.. In Dan Rather's words while commentating on it:

“Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

[OneMind]

31. WTC BUILDING 7 - A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

Silverstein Orders NYFD to "Pull" WTC Building 7
This is a video about the demolition of WTC Building 7 on September 11, 2001.
http://www.reopen911.org/video/cte_04.mov
(QuickTime format; Movie length: approximately 5 minutes)

If you encounter problems streaming the video, you can download it here:
http://www.reopen911.org/freedvd.php (Scroll down to the videos)

If a box opens when you click the link above, asking for name, e-mail, etc., you can simply close the box or click "OK." It is not necessary to enter any information.

If you need Quicktime Player, you can download it here: http://www.apple.com/qicktime/



---------------------


Chapter 19 from "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert.

A Comprehensive report on the War Games of September 11, 2001. The War Games are key to understanding 911.
http://www.911weknow.com/Rubicon19.pdf

If you need Adobe Acrobat, you can download it here: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html


---------------------



Karl Schwarz: Pop Goes the Bush Mythology Bubble: Parts 1 - 6
The following 6 articles by Karl Schwarz disclose the motives for 911.


Part 1: The 9-11 Commission
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/120404Schwarz/120404schwarz.html

Part 2: 9/11 Commission and Bridas
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/121004Schwarz/121004schwarz.html

Part 3: 9-11 served a multitude of purposes
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/121704Schwarz/121704schwarz.html

Part 4: More reasons to not investigate 9-11
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/011405Schwarz/011405schwarz.html

Part 5: Exploding the myth of the Bushes as an all-American family
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/020205Schwarz/020205schwarz.html

Part 6: This world is led by 4-star clowns, liars and frauds
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/021205Schwarz/021205schwarz.html

http://karlschwarz.com


--------------

WT7.net
http://wtc7.net/

9-11 Research
http://911research.wtc7.net/

http://www.reopen911.org/

9-11 Review
http://911review.com/

[OneMind]

32. WTC - DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE

"Burning Questions...Need Answers": FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse

"Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." ~ Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, January 4, 2002

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

[OneMind]

33. WTC BUILDING 7 - DEMOLITION SQUIBS

WTC BUILDING 7 - DEMOLITION SQUIBS (Images and videos at the following link):

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

[OneMind]

34. WTC TOWERS 1 & 2 - CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS

SHREDDING OF STEEL

TWIN TOWERS' STEEL FRAMES RIPPED TO SMALL PIECES


A feature of the collapses that is less obvious than the symmetrically mushrooming tops or the vast clouds of concrete dust is their effect on the towers' steel frames.

The only large remnants of the towers standing after the collapses were base sections of the perimeter walls extending upward several stories. Some of these sections were about 200 feet wide by 80 feet tall. Virtually all of the remaining steel was broken up into small pieces:

There were no remnants of the core structures that rose much above the rubble piles.

Most of the perimeter walls above the standing bases were broken up into the three-floor by three-column prefabricated sections, and many of those sections were ripped apart at the welds.


ONLY CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS CAN DO THIS

(Analysis)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/steel.html

(More Photos)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1nenw.html

[yodermon]

39. Look at this image again.

If you were to visualize a building "pancaking" down onto itself, is this what you would see?

The debris is "showering outward", from the top down. If it were pancaking, wouldn't you, well, .. see pancaking?

Would you see debris being shredded & ejected with such lateral velocity?

sorry, just can't believe my lyin' eyes.

[OneMind]

37. Videos: Some Observations from the Firefighters of Engine 7.

Excerpts are taken from the film "9-11" by the Naudet brothers.

"You have two 110-story office buildings: you don't find a chair, you don't find a telephone, a computer... the biggest piece of a telephone I found was half a keypad, and it was this big. The buildings collapsed to dust." ~ Joe Casaliggi, Engine 7, New York Fire Department

"…. as if they were planning to take down a building."

".… something had happened right there, in the lobby."

http://xenonpuppy.net/collapse%20update/Engine-7.htm

[Make7]

38. The Firefighters of Engine 6.

NARRATOR: By now, most of the people who could have gotten out of the burning tower had gotten out. The men of Ladder 6 had only made it down to the fourth floor when, at 10:28, the tower came down.

MATT KOMOROWSKI: I felt an incredible rush of air at my back.

SAL D'AGOSTINO (Ladder 6 Fire Crew): I remember hearing the boom, the boom. As the floors are pancaking, I'm hearing that.

MIKE MELDRUM: It was like standing in between two heavy freight trains in a tunnel going by you.

NARRATOR: Over 1400 people died in the North Tower but somehow the Ladder 6 team survived.

MIKE MELDRUM: I said, "Captain," I said, "there is a light above us." I thought it was somebody with a flash light. And I said, "What is it?" And he said, "Mick, there is a beautiful blue sky above us." And I said, "Captain, there is a 105-story building above us." He says, "No." He says, "I think we are the top of the World Trade Center right now."

SAL D'AGOSTINO: Yeah.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html