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

Originally posted by deltaboy
Even I would say "yeah I saw it on tv that a plane crash into the building."

First, that's not what he said.

Second, it has been established that there was no tv.

Originally posted by deltaboy
You say there is no tv for him to see when I say he can see the attacks on tv in a school which is suppose to have tvs for the kids for education purposes.

Wasn't the reason he didn't drop the book immediately and leave supposed to be "he didn't want to scare the kids"? Why would such young kids be watching the WTC on fire on television anyway? There was no TV on in that class, and there was no TV near it.

True there wouldnt be a TV on.
Teachers would not let little kids watch that, for fear that the kids couldnt handle it.


[edit on 3-4-2007 by cashlink]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Wasn't the reason he didn't drop the book immediately and leave supposed to be "he didn't want to scare the kids"? Why would such young kids be watching the WTC on fire on television anyway? There was no TV on in that class, and there was no TV near it.

Didn't he say that before he went into class that he saw it on tv? A the pic I posted shows there was a tv nearby.


www.whitehouse.gov...

Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."

I think somebody interpreted that he saw the tv while in the classroom with the kids. It looks more like he says he saw it on tv somewhere. He never said he saw it on a tv in the class with the kids.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Didn't he say that before he went into class that he saw it on tv?

I was responding to your comment that suggested people would have been watching it for education.

A the pic I posted shows there was a tv nearby.

Are you familiar with the school? Because the principal said there was no TV near that room. I have no idea where the image you posted was taken. I don't doubt that there was a TV somewhere in the school.

Originally posted by bsbray11

I was responding to your comment that suggested people would have been watching it for education.

I never said that everybody was watching the tv with the building on fire for education.

Lets go back to my previous post quoting myself...

"Deflection? You say there is no tv for him to see when I say he can see the attacks on tv in a school which is suppose to have tvs for the kids for education purposes. As I put out a pic of the president and his staff in a classroom with a TV!!"-deltaboy

Are you familiar with the school? Because the principal said there was no TV near that room. I have no idea where the image you posted was taken. I don't doubt that there was a TV somewhere in the school.

No tv near that room he might as well mean there was no tv miles away. Does he mean no tv next door? No tv in the room? No tv in the hall?

Since you and I were never there and can never tell where was the nearest tv, he could mean anything.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by deltaboy]

To reach that conclusion, again, you have to twist Bush's words and make them mean something that isn't obvious in the text.

when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on.

WHEN he walked into the classrom, he had seen the plane fly into the first building.

Those are his EXACT WORDS.

You can claim he meant whatever you want. The man is an idiot, and he makes up words, and has bad grammar at times, but the above is no case of bad grammar. He is saying something that does not make sense by the official account of the events of 9/11.

Does it mean anything? I wouldn't be surprised if he did see the first plane hit, but not from any TV in the school. It sounds as if he's trying to create an alibi as he describes something that he actually did.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
To reach that conclusion, again, you have to twist Bush's words and make them mean something that isn't obvious in the text.

when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on.

WHEN he walked into the classrom, he had seen the plane fly into the first building.

Those are his EXACT WORDS.

You can claim he meant whatever you want. The man is an idiot, and he makes up words, and has bad grammar at times, but the above is no case of bad grammar. He is saying something that does not make sense by the official account of the events of 9/11.

Does it mean anything? I wouldn't be surprised if he did see the first plane hit, but not from any TV in the school. It sounds as if he's trying to create an alibi as he describes something that he actually did.

His exact words??? Look where you putting it.

Lets put it in the rest of the context

Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."

Lets see, we got words "first of all" and another word "had".

I seem to recall reading someplace that Bush recieved a call from National Security Adviser Rice while still in the limo outside the school. Could have been a T.V. in in the limo don't you think?

Originally posted by whiterabbit

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

uhh cuz it was a slip of the tongue? yeah thats it...uh huh...yup thats it. everything went off without a hitch and he has a slip of the tongue.

you know, jsut like the "squibs" were caused by "premature detonations" of explosive charges. cuz a guy or team that can pull that job off is going to screw up a couple random placements and have their ordinance go off before they want it. czu didnt you know its possible to be an evil genious but still make the dumbest of mistakes?

Silverstein had no authority over anything going on that day, the incident commander was in charge.

The only reason for the call to Silverstein was to let him know that they could not save building 7. So when he says PULL IT he could have only been talking about the builidng.

Also the last line of his conversation gives it away when he states "and we watched the building collapse"

Originally posted by bsbray11
It sounds as if he's trying to create an alibi as he describes something that he actually did.

Thank you! I've been reading this whole goofy thread hoping that someone would hit the nail on the head.

When I first found out about our dear leader's quote I didn't know what to make of it. You really have to think some crazyness to make any sense of it. This assumption infers a conspiracy directly linked to the US government

1. Bush DID see the 1st plane hit LIVE on some closed circuit monitor receiving an encrypted signal on a pentagon satellite channel, perhaps in his limo, but 'where' doesn't matter right now. Remember, there was NO live shot of the first plane hitting available to the public. The shot we've all become familiar with came out later.

2. Bush's intellect is deteriorating.
www.youtube.com...
Whether you want to call this wet brain, coc aine damage, or just plain dementia, there is a big problem here.

Here's my thread about it

3. Stupid slipped while speaking in public and actually mentioned seeing the first plane hit, and just kept fumbling with it. Remember, he's been in "the know" for awhile now, and he certainly hasn't always been the liability that he is now.

4. Why hasn't he been offed? Well, come on now, he's HW's son. Sure, he's gotten dumb and made some slips, but when you're in the cabal you don't get executed. JFK maybe wasn't so lucky, but they named an airport after him, so all is forgiven.

Okay, now that the post is over I'm going to attempt to embed the youtube video. Every time I do it ATS seems to sneak a little backslash on the end of the address (as viewed in the properties) and it malforms the video ID... let's give her a go...

edit to call myself a tool. Apparently that backslash is to prevent the video from loading in the preview... I guess.



[edit on 4/4/2007 by Sunsetspawn]

Do you think they're GENIUSES, or do you think they're MORONS?

This brings to mind the term " educated morons". A suprising number of them exist.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Silverstein had no authority over anything going on that day, the incident commander was in charge.

The only reason for the call to Silverstein was to let him know that they could not save building 7. So when he says PULL IT he could have only been talking about the builidng.

Also the last line of his conversation gives it away when he states "and we watched the building collapse"

not singling you out ultima, but this is a pretty recurring theme in regards to the silverstein comments.


so, i agree he had no authority to do jack, but, since people in general want to take his quote very literally and give it no slack lets then ask ourselves something;

IF the context of the quote was that the whole conversation was with teh firechief, and IF he meant destroy the building not pull it (the fire team) out, where exactly does the incident commander have the authority to order the implosion of a building? there is NO logical sense to it. i cant think (though i dont presume to know every incident in every city in history) of a single incident where a building needed to be imploded by a fire department while it was still burning and while there was an ongoing incident, or even hours days weeks months later for that matter. a fire dept will try to save a building, and if they cant they let it burn and focus on protecting the other buildings around it. imploding a building that hasnt been prepped (windows etc removed to keep them from turning into shrapnel etc) in an area where none of the other buildings have been prepped (windows boarded up etc) isnt exactly a great way to mitagate damage.

so, either he was still referring to talking to the incident commander with the "pull it" comment or, he went from talking about his convo with the IC to suddenly referring to someone else. but, to make that assumption isnt exactly playing fair. if we are going to take part of his comments literally we have to take the whole comment literally.

so, that leaves us with either a misquote or an implication of the incident commander. does anyone really believe that FDNY was in on this? because a slip of the tongue could be one thing if he was talking about his conversation with the incident commander but to slip up about a conversation wtih some govt black ops leader is another thing all together.

additionally, if the building was ALREADY prepped and scheduled for implosion as part of the ongoing operation that day, why would he even have had to make a decision to "pull it" as that decision would have been made LONG in advance of the actual day.

thats always been a source of the problem for me about silversteins role in anything. if it was all an inside job, the decision to implode the building was already made and the work was already done, he didnt have to decide to "pull it" with the incident commander.

also, with the "and we watched it collapse" part...if he was on a television interview and relaying his version of the events that day, would you have expected him to answer "so we made the decision to pull it, then i went and used the bathroom, got a beer from the fridge, looked a few things up online, went and watched some more news about the day, and then we watched it collapse"?


so, personally, and you can all disagree all you like, i think that by pull "it" he meant the team. yes, i know that the teams had been out of the building for a long time by the time he had this infamous conversation, but how many of the viewers of the show he was quoted on knew that or would ever care to check it out? i think the reason he said "WE" made the decision to pull is simply a PR thing. by implying that he had been the one to make the decision he could then make the viewers of that show thing he was a hero because he was wiling to let his own building burn before risking the lives of more firemen.

thats it, he wanted people to think he was a kind generous man.

but thats just my opinion.


[edit on 5-4-2007 by Damocles]

Originally posted by Damocles
so, i agree he had no authority to do jack, but, since people in general want to take his quote very literally and give it no slack lets then ask ourselves something;

IF the context of the quote was that the whole conversation was with teh firechief, and IF he meant destroy the building not pull it (the fire team) out, where exactly does the incident commander have the authority to order the implosion of a building? there is NO logical sense to it. [edit on 5-4-2007 by Damocles]

Well if the incident commander thought that the builiding, if aloud to collapse on its own it woiuld destroy and or set fire to other buildings i think he would be justified in having the building brought down.

The building had some structural damge and floors were gutted by fires, it would not have taken much to bring it down.

eh, im not buying it. for a number of reasons.

personally i still dont think the IC had that authority. even if he thought it was going to damage other buildings, safety is always more important than property, and demo guys are not firefighters. unless other peoples lives were at risk, no demo team is going to run into a burning building that could collapse any moment while carrying high explosives. yeah the explosives arent going to detonate buy why run around carrying flamables on your person in a fire?

next, ok even if it wasnt going to take much to bring it down, to make a decision to do it, get a demo team on scene with all of the ordinance it would require, get people into the burning buildign to assess it and plan the shot, rig it and blow it within 8 hours? possible but very unlikely.

lastly, if the incident commander made the decision and got a team in to "pull" the building, why is anyone even still confused by this? why are we all discussing this? why is rosie calling it an inside job on national tv? why doesnt nist know about it? or the 911 commission? why on earth would the incident commander keep it a secret? why didnt the demo company come forward? if it was a command decision made on site for the safety and well being of the people in the area or an attempt to mitigate teh damage of the day, why is it a secret?

im sorry but it doesnt add up for me. and maybe im the only one, but if we're basing complicity off of silversteins statements im still left with two options

either silverstein was in on it and so was the incident commander, but then the context of the conversation is just off cuz that buildign should have needed to be prepped before the attack

or

silverstein was as clueless as the rest of us, DID NOT mean destroy the building when he said pull it and just wanted to seem like a hero for 'putting the firefighters before his property' during the interview.

Originally posted by Damocles
eh, im not buying it. for a number of reasons.
personally i still dont think the IC had that authority. even if he thought it was going to damage other buildings, safety is always more important than property, and demo guys are not firefighters. unless other peoples lives were at risk, no demo team is going to run into a burning building that could collapse any moment while carrying high explosives. yeah the explosives arent going to detonate buy why run around carrying flamables on your person in a fire?
.

Who said anything about exposives. Thier are more then 1 way to bring down a building, specially a building that was dmaged.

By the reports from the EPA that salvaged the fuel oil from building 7 stated that thier was no fire on the ground floor due to the fact the fuel oil tanks were intact.

Originally posted by Damocles
silverstein was as clueless as the rest of us, DID NOT mean destroy the building when he said pull it and just wanted to seem like a hero for 'putting the firefighters before his property' during the interview.

Has been my contention since about day two that I heard the quote (Day one, I thought it ment the building). I think he just wanted to look the hero in that interview and screwed up what he was saying. I don't think he's a saint, by far, but I don't think he outed himself on national television also.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Who said anything about exposives. Thier are more then 1 way to bring down a building, specially a building that was dmaged.

ok, so where i said "explosives" insert the mechanism of your choice. i kind of feel like you are pickign and choosing what parts to read of what i said.

the bottom line, REGARDLESS of mechanism is that IF the IC DID have the authority to bring down 7, then WHY is it a secret? if they "made the decision to pull it" then wtf are we even discussing it? the IC would have included that in a report somewhere im pretty sure and NIST would KNOW why the building fell. we wouldnt be having this discussion about 7 and there would be NO conspiracy.

is that a little more articulate on my part? or am i still failing to make my point?

By the reports from the EPA that salvaged the fuel oil from building 7 stated that thier was no fire on the ground floor due to the fact the fuel oil tanks were intact.

ok, i guess im just lost as i fail to see how thats relavant to anything ive posted but sure...