A simple FACT about 9/11 thats CANNOT be debunked!

Originally posted by mikellmikell
"Pull it" meant pull the firefighting operation as in get everybody out. They were talking about the firefighting operation and decided to pull it. Ask a firefighter or any emergency workers. I can't believe people only have 1 definition because it's the one that they want. "Pull it" means get out ASAP!!!

mikell
Been there been pulled

This was asked of the firefighters. The answer from the chief on hand when asked this was that there were NO firefighters in the building for at least 6 HOURS before that particular command came down. So it was NOT directed at the firefighters. They were told to get away from the building because it was GOING TO COME DOWN.

The rich do not need a terror attack to make money, and it did not turn our economy around. It slit it's throat. People were laid off, and just this past year hiring and unemployment have started to drop to some of the lowest levels ever. if anything it ended the 'dot.com boom' that existed thorugh the 90's into the new millenium.

Is it pride that will not allow Americans to believe that they were attacked on 9/11 by a group who hates the West?

That is not true. There were firefighters on site until the building came down. They need to pull back because of the debris that was about to be created by the structure that they knew was going to collapse, based on observation.

Originally posted by rizla
The thread poster is correct about WTC7. It's the single clear smoking gun about 9/11 (though the lack of images of the pentagon 'plane' deserve attention). Silverstein said 'pull'. That means demolish. After he said he meant 'pull' the firefighters, but I've read there were no fire-fighters in WTC7. There were a few fires, but that type of building has burned for days without falling.

www.wtc7.net...

Heres what I got for pull...

A PBS documentary about the 9/11/01 attack, America Rebuilds, features an interview with the leaseholder of the destroyed WTC complex, Larry Silverstein. In it, the elderly developer 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.

This statement seems to suggest that the FDNY decided to demolish the building in accordance with Silverstein's suggestion, since the phrase "pull it" in this context seems to mean to demolish the building. At least that interpretation appears to be supported by a statement by a Ground Zero worker in the same documentary:

... we're getting ready to pull the building six.

Building 6 was one of the badly damaged low-rise buildings in the WTC complex that had to be demolished as part of the cleanup operation.

A third explanation is less obvious but makes sense of the non-sequiturs in the above explanations: perhaps Silverstein's statement was calculated to confuse the issue of what actually happened to Building 7. By suggesting that it was demolished by the FDNY as a safety measure, it provides an alternative to the only logical explanation -- that it was rigged for demolition before the attack. The absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan to "pull" Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people, who neither grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled demolition of a skyscraper, nor its contradiction with FEMA's account of the collapse, nor the thorough illlegality of such an operation. Thus the idea that officials decided to "pull" Building 7 after the attack serves as a distraction from the inescapable logic that the building's demolition was planned in advance of the attack, and was therefore part of an inside job to destroy the entire WTC complex.

Web research supports the theory that Silverstein's remark was part of a calculated distraction. The pull-it remark is copied by hundreds of websites, many citing the remark from the Ground Zero worker about Building 6 as proof that to 'pull' means to demolish. However, searching sites specific to the demolition trade does not support this meaning of 'pull'. The following Google searches of the two best known controlled demolition sites in October of 2003 did not return any results indicating that pulling and demolition are synonymous.

web.archive.org...://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm#222

The 7 WTC 'pull it' controversy.

Apparently Larry Silverstein tries to explain something to us in the 2002 PBS documentary ‘America Rebuilds’:
“I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”
I mailed Jowenko BV and asked if 'pull' was an industry term for 'demolish'. They said it wasn't. Implosionworld said the same thing. I run into the same problem when looking into different dictionaries. There is always a distinction made between 'pull down', 'pull away' and 'pull back'. And I have not been able to find one person on the internet who uses this word as a substitute for 'demolish'. So I think it's safe to assume that Larry needs to clarify what he meant, but unfortunately he refuses to do that.
In the same PBS documentary this is said by one of the construction workers:
"[narrator]The department of design and construction had leveled World Trade Center buildings 4 and 5...[telephone rings] Hello?...ow, we're getting ready to pull building six....[The documentary moves on to the next person] We had to be very careful how we demolished building six..."
Now, lets see what implosionworld told me:
"There is no such phrase in explo-demo. Most likely he meant "pull out" as in have people evacuate. Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally."
Of course these companies are not going to adhere to any conspiracy theories, but they did help in dispelling another possible red herring. The fact that it is very likely that 7 WTC has been blown up doesn't change at all, but I wonder why Silverstein made this strange statement and especially why PBS conveniently put that 'ready to pull building six' sentence in. Maybe someone is messing with our heads. I don't know.

Even I wonder why would FDNY would be involved in demolitions job.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by UDM
After the '93 bombings wan't there a big gash too?
Also, if 7 fell why did WTC 4, 5, and 6 stand for most of the day. Note they did get damaged and were burning, and like 50% or so of the buildings was gone.

Because WTC 7 had a unique design. It was built over an existing electrical substation. Furthermore, neithr of those buildings had the extensive emergency generator systems and fuel piping inside them that WTC 7 had.

This is indeed true. The building was UPGRADED. Not degraded. The independant fuel sources were generators and such. However, where were all of the explosions? The only real explosions heard were right before the building came down roughly 10 hours after the towers came down. If the fuel was indeed the cause then the fire should have been hot and burning instead of smoldering like it was. There should have been a constant chain of explosions as these separate sources of fuel were ignited. If this happened then I can understand a haphazard collapse. Not a full on perfect collapse as was video taped.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Right, so this "smoldering fire" lasted seven hours before the building collapsed.

Sure.

As has been talked about numerous times here, dark or black smoke does not mean that the fire is dying.

You do realize that you are looking a 50 story building right, how can a fire covering that many floors and producing such huge volumes of smoke be called "smoldering".

Please show us a demolition where this "crimp" was observed, yet no bombs were heard, and no flashes were seen. The interior collapsed first, which is shown by the penthouse collapsing first, and then the crimp before the rest of the building collapsed.

Why did no one hear the demo charges?



[edit on 27-10-2006 by LeftBehind]

Yeah, and that blazing fire in this picture is black smoke and you can see the flames. Also, have you not seen the video interviews with the firefighters on scene? Actually, it's obvious that you haven't because if you had then you would not have posted the question about the bombs being heard and the 15 (yes, a firefighter was video taped STATING 15) flashes being seen in the windows AS IF IN A DEMOLITION. There are so many videos out there now showing these interviews that I'm sure you can find them. There is also a video that shows the crimp starting in the middle of WTC 7 and then a perfect uniform FREE FALL collapse. That's what not ONE of the people arguing against this theory is addressing. A building, regardless of damage, will not collapse at FREE FALL. Unless MAYBE (a big MAYBE) it was completely engulfed in a blazing fire. I can see possibly ONE side falling in or the top floors but not the entire building and perfectly into their footprints. Just is not sound sciene or common sense.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


It is, however, the first building in history to completely collapse from "fire".

Do I have to point out just how absurdly stupid that statment is?

Again with the one liners Howard? Skadi should have said steel skyscraper yes, but you know what was ment.

Originally posted by esdad71
The rich do not need a terror attack to make money, and it did not turn our economy around. It slit it's throat. People were laid off, and just this past year hiring and unemployment have started to drop to some of the lowest levels ever. if anything it ended the 'dot.com boom' that existed thorugh the 90's into the new millenium.

Is it pride that will not allow Americans to believe that they were attacked on 9/11 by a group who hates the West?

It has nothing to do with pride. It has to do with finding out what really happened.

So the rich didn't need this to make more money. Well, here is another issue then. How do the rich stay rich? By controlling the resources available to the people. I already explained how this impacted our support of otherwise 'unsupportable' issues. Iraq because of WMDs (slash/OIL). Afghanistan to find a scapegoat. The only problem with that theory is that why would we need to find someone when that someone was in a U.S. Military hospital at the TIME OF THE ATTACKS. Namely Osama bin'Laden. There are just too many holes that are not being filled.

Did it really slit its throat? I mean, the bust was coming. They knew this. It was going to start the recession anyway. All of the warning signs were out there. The recession actually started in April of 01 so it wasn't started by this attack. The recession was going to last a lot longer though if something like this didn't happen. War is always a way to jumpstart an economy. Money is pumped back in through defense contracts, employment, and on and on and on.

I guess we can go back and forth on this forever. You have your views and I have mine. Here is the messed up thing.

Just 6 months ago I was right where you were. Yet I never took the time to really LOOK into this whole thing. I was an avid Bush and government supporter. Yet after my OWN due diligence and research I have found too many suspicious occurences to support their claims anymore.

Pancake theory and unique structure is a bunch of BS. If a building collapses on itself it will still SLOW DOWN. No matter if it goes straight down on itself or not. IT WILL SLOW DOWN not free fall and gain speed. Also, it wouldn't pulverize everything inside of it.

You have your view and I now have my own after really looking into it. Do I want to believe that our government is capable of this? No. Do I believe they now had a hand in it and many other events like this? Yes. After long hours of research, a resounding yes.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

In 1976, the New York City Fire Commissioner, John O'Hagan, published a book entitled "High Rise/Fire and Life Safety," in which he called attention to the serious fire-safety issues in most high-rise buildings constructed since 1970, referring to such buildings as "semi-combustible." Unlike the earlier generation of skyscrapers, which used concrete and masonry to protect the structural steel, many of the newer buildings employed sheetrock and spray-on fire protection. The spray-on protection generally consisted of either a cementlike material that resembles plaster or a mineral-fibre spray, such as the one used to protect the floor joists in the World Trade Center. O'Hagan pointed out that, even when these spray-ons are properly mixed and applied to the steel (which must be clean), they are much less dense than concrete and can be easily knocked off. The swaying of the cables in the elevator shafts has been known to dislodge the fire protection from the columns in the cores of these buildings, and the coating used on floor supports is often removed by workers who install the ducts and wiring inside the hollow floor. The questionable performance of the fire protection used in these buildings, combined with the greater expanse of lightweight, unsupported floors, O'Hagan said, created the potential for collapse, of the individual floors and of the entire structure. He also pointed out that the open spaces favored by modern developers allowed fires to spread faster than the compartmentalized spaces of the earlier buildings, and that the synthetic furnishings in modern buildings created more heat and smoke than materials made out of wood and natural fibres.

www.skyscrapersafety.org...

So, now you're taking the word of a NYC fire commissioner when it comes to structural stability? I thought only structural engineers could do that Howard? Or do you agree since it goes along with what you are paid to say...err I mean believe?

Originally posted by rizla
Silverstein said 'pull'. That means demolish. After he said he meant 'pull' the firefighters, but I've read there were no fire-fighters in WTC7. There were a few fires, but that type of building has burned for days without falling.
[edit on 27-10-2006 by rizla]

Agreed so why did Lucky Larry mention the terrible amount of loss of life already? I think and nobody here is getting it being hung up on technical details as usual around here and going nowhere as usual...

that it was a faux pas like the pull it comment. What I'm getting at is that Larry in a moment of emotional weakness gave us NOT one but TWO hints at what really happened on that day and probably among our best evidence.

Guess Only I hear this though?

So any takers on what he was talking about on the 'heavy loss of life quote?'

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

So any takers on what he was talking about on the 'heavy loss of life quote?'

I don't know, maybe because firefighters were killed on the twin towers already maybe?

Originally posted by forestlady
There was a thread about the "Pull it" argument awhile back on ATS. Someone in the demolition industry told us that "Pull it" always meant pull down the building, as in bring it down. Larry Silverstein probably knew what it meant, since I'm sure he works with engineers, etc. seeing as how he owns alot of properties. Apparently, firefighters know this, too, at least according to the industry expert.

To reiterate this point. Larry Silverstein became a rich man buying buildings and demolishing these buildings. He would infact be very aware of what demolition lingo would be as he works with these people all the time. I never want to hear someone say that Larry wouldn't know what "pull it" means when he "pulled" plenty of buildings to get to where he is today.

What's more logical? Larry knowing demolition lingo since he works with them regularly or Larry knowing firefighter lingo that he doesn't work with on a regular basis. Speculation.... I'd wage my weeks pay that Larry hasn't been around enough firefighter operations that needed "pulled" to know what figherfighters use to "pull" an operation.

Just my 2 pence.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

So any takers on what he was talking about on the 'heavy loss of life quote?'

I don't know, maybe because firefighters were killed on the twin towers already maybe?

Good, we know this to be true but why does he repeat this just words before telling us that WTC 7 was pulled?

He is suggesting one of the two here I posit:

1. more life could have been lost - which is a vapid statement that anybody could make at any time about any disaster or..

2. in future the plan would have been to lose more life in order to destroy WTC 7? or the importance of WTC 7's destruction would AVOID the loss of more life?

Why is nobody else seeing this?

Originally posted by deltaboy

Even I wonder why would FDNY would be involved in demolitions job.

Even I wonder why a fire chief would call the building owner to ask him if he could "pull" his men back. They don't do that. A fire chief has the authority to "pull" his men back. Not the building owner.

Originally posted by whylistentome
Yeah, and that blazing fire in this picture is black smoke and you can see the flames.

The reason I have LeftBehind on ignore is because of posts like the one you're responding to. Every time someone points out the black smoke, he posts pictures of fuel-rich fires without realizing that he's ignorantly suggesting the the Tower and WTC7 fires were fuel-rich, blazing infernos, rather than the flameless, suffocating fires, which also produce a lot of dark smoke. And he has to throw in a line about how he's been debunking people with these for ages, of course. The Tower fires, earlier on, were much lighter. How this translates for him, I never could figure out.

It's in the chemistry of fire that black smoke is always indicative of an inefficient burn. This is regardless of the gross heat output or etc., it's just a fact that smoke turns black because it has soot in it, and soot is uncombusted hydrocarbons; unused energy.

Originally posted by Griff

Even I wonder why a fire chief would call the building owner to ask him if he could "pull" his men back. They don't do that. A fire chief has the authority to "pull" his men back. Not the building owner.

Lets see what this one has to say...

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.

Doesn't say anywhere that the fire department commander says "permission to pull my men back, sir."

Originally posted by deltaboy
Doesn't say anywhere that the fire department commander says "permission to pull my men back, sir."

It still doesn't mention why the fire commander would even need to call the owner at all. Period. If the fire commander thought his men were in danger, why would he take the time to call larry? Why wouldn't he call him later and explain "we couldn't control the fire, so I left it burn". It doesn't make sense any way you look at it.

My opinion is Larry was glorryfying himself in that interview to make himself look more important. There was no need for the fire commander to even talk to him at all.

No one seems to believe me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Originally posted by esdad71
That is not true. There were firefighters on site until the building came down. They need to pull back because of the debris that was about to be created by the structure that they knew was going to collapse, based on observation.

They why are the firefighters being questioned on it state that they were pulled out of WTC 7 at 11:30 am? When did the building fall? 5:30? Close to that?

Originally posted by esdad71
They were not 'designed' to withstand multiple airliner hits, they were built to withstand a possbile 707 striking it if lost after take off or prior to a landing in adverse weather conditions. It was not designed to with stand a 767 going in excess of 500 mph.

Also, review the design specs of the towers, where it was inner core colmuns that held suspeneded floors that were attached to outer columns. It is a very very unique design for it's time and was designed for commercial space and a few colums as possible to extract as mcu hsq footage as it could.

The collapse is a precedent that was set and hopefully we never see it again. Jsut because something has never happened before does not mean it cannot.

911research.wtc7.net...

the closest thing you will find is the partial collapse of this tower, with similar contruction of perimeter columns and lack of fireproofing, howver the core is reineforced concrete, not steel as the WTC, which more than likely saved it from total collapse.

[edit on 27-10-2006 by esdad71]

But you see they constuctured them thinking on a fully gas loaded 707,much heavier than the 767 that hit the towers, they wern't anywhere near their take off weight.

If you feel you have more doubts i would strongly recomend seeing this video, unless you hide from the truth.

Video

And yet the WTC 7 collapsed 'cause of fire? i'll say it again the steel core can never ever collapse, and never ever collapse at the speed they did and i'll have to say that there were steel cored buildings that got on fire before, buildings less complex than the WTCs,and fires way bigger than the ones on 9/11 and yet they did not collapse.Incredible?