USINFO.STATE.GOV .. This site sure straightened ME out

You've given 2 annomylies out of hundreds. And who is misinterpretting the PNAC documents? I think they are pretty clear at what they state. Have you read it?

And I'm not sure if I ever have said that Bush was behind it. Maybe the elite, but never Bush alone. This includes Clinton and the democrats too....so my views aren't partisan in any way shape or form.

check this out though:
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

my own research, gave credit to references of course. But the idea and all came to me yesterday and spent 3-4 hours gathering references and putting it together, the dots connected pretty much perfectly, i sent it to the Scholars of 9/11 Truth Movement to add to their case.

Agents Smith, and Roark; I was just wondering if it would be possible to get an explanation from you any time soom regarding the inconsistencies present in your argument, and the Governments. It would be very rude of you both to continue to just ignore me outright because I'm a "nobody" on these forums.

Originally posted by Griff
You've given 2 annomylies out of hundreds. And who is misinterpretting the PNAC documents? I think they are pretty clear at what they state. Have you read it?

Yes I read the PNAC document " rebuilding america's defenses".

The quote what it is all about says:

" Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor."

The process of transformation is about information technologies.

" Information technologies,
in particular, are becoming more prevalent
and significant components of modern
military systems. These information technologies
are having the same kind of transforming
effects on military affairs as they
are having in the larger world".

They don't say: hey, we need a new pearl harbor to go to war with afghanistan and Iraq. They are talking about new technologies.

So that's what i mean with misinterpretation. You take a quote like that, and you interpretate that quote to support your conspiracy theory, while you completely ignore to mention what that paragraph from the document is all about.

[edit on 15-4-2006 by Louis255]

On PNAC's site (emphasis mine):

We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

Source.

These guys want to secure "American interests" across the world, strengthening the US's "leadership" role in the world. And all the while, they're talking about increasing the military spending, constantly increasing military spending. From the same webpage:

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

PNAC isn't some organization bent on improving the world's communications or any b.s. like that. They're out to secure corporate interests with our military, plain and simple. And without that new Pearl Harbor, they wouldn't have been able to really get their plans off the ground.

So, let's just assume "pull it" is a term used by both firefighters and demolition professionals for 2 different actions.

How many of us have ever heard firefighters use this term? Show of hands? Ok. 3 (a representative number). Three people claim that "pull it" is a term used by firefighters, meaning to vacate the building.

How many of us have ever heard demolition experts use this therm? Show of hands? Ok. 76 (a representative number). The vast majority of regular people (non-firemen or demolition experts) have heard the term used in relation to demolition.

Ok. We have Larry Silverstein, who is neither a fireman nor a demolition expert using the term. What are the odds that he would know this elusive term used by a few old-time firefighters to indicate he thought it best to vacate the building?

And what are the odds that Larry Silverstein, a building owner and developer, would know and use this term, used by building demo experts to indicate he thought it best to demolish the building?

If he wanted to vacate the building, wouldn't he have said vacate? Clear the building? Evacuate the building? Get those men outta there? Pull 'em out? Any of a number of commonly used terms by non-professional firefighters such as Larry.

On the other hand, if he was neither of these professions, the same as 76 of us here, wouldn't the most probable meaning of "pull it" be what we have heard many times before watching our demo shows, and what he, as a building owner and developer would likely use to indicate a decision to demolish the building?

And don't forget, when we heard him utter these words, he was NOT speaking to firefighters, but to an interviewer in a documentary called 'America Rebuilds'. He was recounting the conversation to the interviewer and therefore the public.

Would he use such an obscure terminology not understood by many firefighters, much less by the general public of the Unitd States without qualifying its meaning?

"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."
Source

Saying that a building contractor, owner and developer used "pull it" in this context to mean "clear the building of firefighters" is not only grasping at straws, It's a fantasy of the highest denial, in my opinion.

And this, in itself, is not a smoking gun. It's just one piece of the horrible, ugly puzzle of truth that is the tragedy of 9/11.

that there //USINFO.STATE.GOV/ you linked to
is just as biased and agenda driven as all those
books & site & theories of US Administration factions
and/or Zionists carrying out a long & intricate
'New Pearl Harbor Catastrophe' conspiracy!

i know its much more engaging to follow the intricacies
of each imaginative tale of conspiracy...
but in the end, there will not be a completely true & factual resolution
of the 9-11 terror/sabotage/crimes/zealot attacks.

the 'Official Version'(s) of the many different elements involving 9-11
may well have a core of factual truth in them...
....but
there's also a whole lot of missing/ left-out evidence & information
within those Official Versions.
((which futher compounds the general observation of the public
that there is Indeed a government 'cover-up' ))

~~~~~~
at some future time, it may well be that psychiatrists and sociologists will venture to say
that the "Two Towers Demolitions" conspiracy theory,
was born from the publics shared belief that only a covert placement of
thermite or burn-only C-4, could have caused the towers to collapse...

because modern science, technology, code enforcement, government permits etc. had eliminated the possibility of catastrophic skyscraper collapse.
In other words, the public was in denial that the Gov't;
in its role of watchdog, oversight, permitting authority, administer of general health & well being
and all the other things that Gov't disperses to the tax-payers
...was in fact wrong/negilgent/complicit. in many areas, including..
*permitting, construction & engineering of the towers
*foreigners @ pilot training programs around the country
*many gaps in trailing/surveilling mujahadeen cells in the country
*incompetence in the FBI,Counter-Intell,NSA,CIA,sp-ops,in Nat'l Security
etc etc etc

So...the 'TwinTowers were Demo'd' theory was put out there
to quell the sheeple, with the implication that All of youse can keep on trusting the puppet masters @ Gov't !!

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
When talking about a team or company of firefighters, one could say "pull it" as in pull the team, group, unit, company, etc.

So, you go around and call a group of people it? Is English your first language? A group of people whether they are firefighters or not would be called THEM. Furthermore, at the time he was talking with the fire chief...THERE WERE NO FIREFIGHTERS IN THE BUILDING.

Do you not read all the posts before replying?

Originally posted by SportyMB

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It is also a term used by fire fighters to indicate thatthey are pullingback, out of a fire.

Yup, "pull it" has already been beat to death....it is in FACT a term used by fire fighters to indicate that they're pulling back, pulling out, grab all the gear, get all the hoses and let's get the hell outta dodge.

www.firefightersforums.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">ww w.firefightersforums.com
posted by: OudeVanDagen

ShadowXIX: "Pull It" to many firefighters, especially to those oldtimers like me that served long before portable radios became popular and affordable, can also mean to cease all interior operations. Years ago, before SCBAs, mask cans made interior operations possible, but when those inside operations had to be abandoned in favor of an exterior attack the commaders would order the men on the outside to pull - and pull hard - on the interior hose line. This was a signal (as were long air horn blasts and whistles) to get out asap. Pulling on that interior line to signal the interior crews to stop and get out asap led to the term "Pull It" and it is still used by many today.

He wasnt refering to the firefighters when he said "it" as you can see from the above qoute, "it" means the hose, they used to pull on "it" to warn the fireman on the other end to get the hell out, before they had radios, seems failry simple to understand does it not?

The question that you shoud be asking is how does Larry Silverstein know an old fire fighter saying like "pull it" refers to pulling on the hose? I didnt know that term and my old man is a retired fireman of 26 years.

Either way why would he be telling the fire chief to "pull it"? as stated, he wouldnt of been in charge regardless of it being his building or not, the fire chief/commander makes those decisions, not land lords

Its another one of those comments we will never know what was meant from. The argument against the official story does it self no favours at all though by constantly arguing over minor details, when things like this cant be decided upon they should be disgarded, and the search for more/better evidence should continue.

Originally posted by Ernold Same

He wasnt refering to the firefighters when he said "it" as you can see from the above qoute, "it" means the hose, they used to pull on "it" to warn the fireman on the other end to get the hell out, before they oshad radi, seems failry simple to understand does it not?

The question that you shoud be asking is how does Larry Silverstein know an old fire fighter saying like "pull it" refers to pulling on the hose? I didnt know that term and my old man is a retired fireman of 26 years.

Either way why would he be telling the fire chief to "pull it"? as stated, he wouldnt of been in charge regardless of it being his building or not, the fire chief/commander makes those decisions, not land lords

Its another one of those comments we will never know what was meant from. The argument against the official story does it self no favours at all though by constantly arguing over minor details, when things like this cant be decided upon they should be disgarded, and the search for more/better evidence should continue.

1. There were no firefighters in the building
2. He doesnt know the term
3. Hes not in charge
4. He therefore means pull the building, the demolition term

Originally posted by Killtown

Originally posted by HowardRoark

It is also a term used by fire fighters to indicate thatthey are pullingback, out of a fire.

Who was he talking to, a demo foreman, or the fire chief?

Keep telling yourself that. That PBS video was about the WTC buildings FALLING DOWN or did you not hear the WTC 6 "pull" comment?

If it was a military operation (ya know, with a code name and all), then I could see were someone could use the term "pull it", but I doubt the fireman fighting the WTC 7 fire were part of some specific "operation" other than fighting a fire.

Also, how could the "its" (the firefighters) be pulled out/back/whatever when they never even went in the building to fight the fire in the first place???

Its the best excuse they could come up with. You can't blame them for trying. What I didnt know until just now that Larry Silverstein is a fireman, not a multibillion dollar real estate magnate. He was so concerned for those firemen of his, he wanted to pull it, or them, or something like that, and wouldnt you know it!!! Just then they watched the building come down, good thing he said pull it when he did!!

Here are a few testimonies from firefighters about being 'pulled out' I think I few people might be curious to see:

Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o' clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we've got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there...

[............]

This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you couldnít see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that ís when 7 collapsed.

[..........]

Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess.
www.nytimes.com...

They put another engine company in there which augmented us. And the stream was even good enough to almost reach Tower 7. And then what happened was, we heard this rumbling sound and my father pulled us all back and then with that Tower 7 came down. We were still operating the satellite at that point. We ran. It really didn’t come up to where the satellite was, but it came close enough.
www.firehouse.com...

because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

[............]

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

[......]

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.
www.firehouse.com...

Let's not forget what Silverstein said in context (emphasis mine):

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.
www.serendipity.li...

The offical word from Silverstein:

On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
[url]http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html/url]

The biggest conspiracy at the very most may be that he had meant firefighters outside the building, which we know was an issue from the testimonies above. Bearing in mind the confusion of the day just because there are slight descrepancies does not mean a conspiracy fo the highest magnitude.

At the very least, as I've said time and time again, common sense should allow one to deduce that Silverstein would have no reason to discuss demolishing the building (illegally) with the firefighter commander, let alone then reiterate it on television.

I also find it amusing that Silverstein is lying when he says what he meant, but telling the truth when his words are such that it is possible to twist them to an alternate meaning..

I'm sorry, but no amount of 'Agent', 'Shill', etc, etc insults can ever change that.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

You see, now you have just added more inconsistencies to you argument. I thank you for taking the time to answer the questions asked of you though, AgentSmith.

From one of the quotes you put forward in your thread above, AgentSmith, it says any Firemen in the building were called away at around 3:30pm. Yet there is this New York times article (archived version, original requires login) which states; and I quote "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

So which is it? 3:30pm? 11:30am? There were firefighters in the building? There weren't firefighters in the building? Could you people please get your story straight? I'm not trying to nitpick here, but a court of law would always examine inconsistencies within a story, and I think it's important, and relevant to do so here, as well.

Also, we have a further inconsistency highlighted by the NY Times article;

With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch. It fell in the late afternoon, hampering rescue efforts and hurling its beams into the ground like red-hot spears.

According to FEMA, and NIST, there were no attempts to save the building by the fire-fighters, so what's the deal? Are you able to just conveniently disregard the FEMA and NIST reports when it suits your agenda, yet still quote them on their explanation of what happened when it does? The whole official story is as garbled and as full of holes as yours is. Furthermore, Agent Smith, perhaps if you read those quotes you posted in here, you will come to the realisation not one of them contains the term "Pull it", in reference to backing the Fire Brigade away from the area. This does not do any favours at all for your already weaker than weak argument.

I think you'll find the key problem here was the huge amount of confusion, if you feel you could organise and collate the information better than the people that have, then please, feel free to do so. If you feel you could recall events precisely in such circumstances, then please join up in the public services if you arn't already, we need more people like you.
Any event attracts a diverse range of conflicting accounts, only most things arn't so significant like this. It is also not 'my' version of events as I was not there, I just use life experience and research to come to conclusions like most people. If you think the individual firefighters are lying then that's fine, take it up with them, not me.
Just because the firefighter's don't say pull it does not change the other facts that Silverstein would not be discussing illegal building demolitions with the chief fire commander, let alone admit it on TV.

You'll notice that one does say, emphasis mine:

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

[......]

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.
www.firehouse.com...

So what gives? Maybe we're talking about human beings that acted through their own free will on one of the most disorientating, confusing and extraordinary days in American history. I think you'll find the usual command structure and record keeping was not quite normal you know..
It wasn't a movie, there was no director, even the officials have to piece everything together from flimsy information.

Just a theory....

[edit on 16-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

If I have learned anything from posting on message boards over the last 7 or 8 years its this: Dont get into a debate with a moderator that is absolutely certain that he is right. So, I am bowing out of this one. Have a Happy Easter everyone.

Why not? The fact I'm a moderator means nothing, I don't even moderate the 9/11 forum anyway, because it's something I post in extensively and have a strong opinon of.
We have to remain impartial when moderating.

If you feel you have a strong argument please continue, but common sense and testimonies really make it seem unlikely that is what Silverstein meant on TV, even if it was intentionally brought down.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
but common sense and testimonies really make it seem unlikely that is what Silverstein meant on TV, even if it was intentionally brought down.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

This is the only reason that would make me think that he didn't mean demolitions. Because, Smith you're right....why would he be talking about an illegal operation to the fire station commander?

Exactly, I do agree that WTC7 came down in an unusual manner, but then I'm no civil engineer. I just don't think Silverstein's comment has any relevance either way, it isn't evidence of there being a demolition, but nor is evidence to the contrary.
I don't necessarily think that it's delibrate disinformation designed to divert attention from more viable evidence, but it seems to be working effectively as such.

i believe that it was probably demolition, but im sorry when i say that i dont believe that this had anything to do with it. so for one, document this day, because i agree with agentsmith that this simply doesnt mean anything.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I think you'll find the key problem here was the huge amount of confusion, if you feel you could organise and collate the information better than the people that have, then please, feel free to do so. If you feel you could recall events precisely in such circumstances, then please join up in the public services if you arn't already, we need more people like you.

Cut the facetious waffling, Smith. It's really stupid.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Any event attracts a diverse range of conflicting accounts, only most things arn't so significant like this. It is also not 'my' version of events as I was not there, I just use life experience and research to come to conclusions like most people. If you think the individual firefighters are lying then that's fine, take it up with them, not me.

I have never said once that any of the fire-fighters were lying. I put up FEMA and NIST sources that state information to the contrary, then called you a liar. I didn't call any fire-fighters liars.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Just because the firefighter's don't say pull it does not change the other facts that Silverstein would not be discussing illegal building demolitions with the chief fire commander, let alone admit it on TV.

Well Silverstein obviously didn't mean to say that. He slipped up and put his foot in his mouth, which probably happened when he was trying to switch between the story he was supposed to give and what really happened. That the fire-fighters didn't use the term "pull it" is proof of nothing, you're right. All I said was it doesn't really do your argument any favours, and I was right.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
You'll notice that one does say, emphasis mine:

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

[......]

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.
www.firehouse.com...

I read those the first time you quoted them. Thank you kindly.

Originally posted by Code_Burger2002 Fema Report - "No manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

Originally posted by Code_Burger
From one of the quotes you put forward in your thread above, AgentSmith, it says any Firemen in the building were called away at around 3:30pm. Yet there is this New York times article (archived version, original requires login) which states; and I quote "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

Right back at you. Any Fire-fighters who were in that building were all ordered out by 11:30am, according to the Fire Commander of that area. Not according to Silverstein, who has no authority to be deciding anything of the sort, and is no authority on this matter compared to Frank Fellini. If the order had been given at 11:30am, I very much doubt there would be anyone, or anything, left to "pull" by late afternoon (even counting the Rogue Fire-fighters who kept going back in). So what the hell was Silverstein talking about? You know full well what he was talking about;

He was talking about pulling the Building down!

Originally posted by AgentSmith
So what gives?

You tell me.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Maybe we're talking about human beings that acted through their own free will on one of the most disorientating, confusing and extraordinary days in American history. I think you'll find the usual command structure and record keeping was not quite normal you know..

That's overstating the obvious a bit, isn't it? Of course the usual command structure and record keeping were "not quite normal." Do you take me for an Idiot or something, just because my ATS point level is somewhat inferior to most? They were probably under insane amounts of pressure, but I'm almost certain they still have the systems and methods in place to accurately record actions as large as "clearing" an entire 47 story building of Fire-fighters.

Originally posted by AgentSmith

It wasn't a movie, there was no director, even the officials have to piece everything together from flimsy information.

Just a theory....

Yes, they may have had to piece things together from quite flimsy information, but this didn't happen just yesterday, did it? They've had 5 years to piece together their story from all information available, so why is their story full of more holes now than it was back then?

You're right, Agent Smith, it's not a movie, so why does you're explanation of events sound like it's right out of one? This isn't the stupid Hollywood film with the American Cars that just explode into a huge ball of flames when they hardly even get touched. No. It's not one of those stupid action films where the hero finds himself in a gun fight and takes refuge behind a car door, or a flimsy wooden table, which somehow protects him from high velocity automatic machine gun fire.

NO.

No Agent Smith, you're right about one thing, if not anything else; This is no movie.

So...

Now "pull it" meant pull the fire hose? WOW! Thanks for clarifying that...