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

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"

Lets go back to the significance of that quote.

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.

And he is the one that supposedy sent the command to blow that building to hell? If he was the one to send that command then why did he mention "they"?

"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.

Who made the decision? Who is they?

Originally posted by deltaboy

Lets go back to the significance of that quote.

"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.

Who made the decision? Who is they?

Well lets take it 1 step at a time.

1. Silverstein had no authority to tell the incident commander what to do with his men.

2. The only reason for the call was so that the incident commander could tell Silverstein that they could not save the building (firemen were probly already out of the building)

3. So the only thing that Silverstein could have been talking about was the building when he suggested they PULL IT.

4. The incident commander decided to PULL the building. and they watched it collapse.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
4. The incident commander decided to PULL the building. and they watched it collapse.

Ultima, you know ICS as well as, or probably even better than i do, and you KNOW that on a scene you almost dont go take a leak without writing it down.

so, if the IC DID order teh building to be "pulled" wheres the paperwork? wheres teh report? why is nist confused? why is the 911 commission confused?

why has the IC not come forward to clear this up for the world in case his report "got lost"? who did the demo job? (by any mechanism) i mean, SOMEONE dropped taht building under your hypothesis...who was it?

without these answered at least in part...theres no way ill believe the IC "pulled" the building. and if the IC didnt pull the building then exactly what was larry referring to again?

Originally posted by Damocles
Ultima, you know ICS as well as, or probably even better than i do, and you KNOW that on a scene you almost dont go take a leak without writing it down.

But do we have any paperwork on builidng 6 ? Because builidng 6 was PULLED. I will have to see if i can find out which contractor had the contract to PULL building 6, maybe they had or know who had the contract for builidng 7.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I will have to see if i can find out which contractor had the contract to PULL building 6...

I will wager ALL of my ATS "points" that the contractor turns out to be none other than... CDI (or someone sub-contracted by CDI).

CDI was initially retained by Tully Construction Co. Inc., one of the site's four main cleanup management contractors, to assess debris removal in its sector that includes the former Two WTC and several smaller buildings. The site's other contractors have also agreed to CDI's involvement, with the goal of creating a site-wide master plan, says one contractor executive.
Conventional demolition of 5 WTC is not possible currently because it would get in the way of debris removal operations for the collapsed 7 WTC, which itself is a stand-alone operation.

Freestanding sections of the towers can "probably" be pulled over using cables and heavy equipment, says CDI.

To accelerate steel removal, Weeks Marine Inc. has created two steel offloading areas that ramped up operations last week to transport debris by barge for recycling.

Business was slow at first as truckdrivers maneuvered through the site and city streets and had to pass muster with fbi officials checking for evidence. One site source says security was beefed up after some drivers sold steel privately to scrap dealers.

Wittich says the city has awarded contracts to two private scrap dealers to handle 50,000 tons of steel. The rest is expected to be used to create offshore artificial reefs or head for "upland" disposal." -Construction.com/enr.com (10/1/01)

[edit on 9-4-2007 by Pootie]

Then give me all your points poot, it was these guys..

en.wikipedia.org...

AMEC plc (LSE: AMEC) is a British company, headquartered in London. It carries out engineering and construction for the oil and gas, petrochemical, power generation, nuclear, pharmaceutical, defense, chemical, water and mining industries. Through its Earth and Environmental division AMEC supports clients in government, infrastructure, industrial and natural resources sectors in delivering environmental services including aquatic and terrestrial disciplines. AMEC employs 22,000 people in over 40 countries. It has operations around the world, including North America (Canada and the United States), South America (Peru, Chile), Commonwealth of Independent States (Russia, Caspian), China, Middle East (Iraq, Kuwait), Australasia and Africa.

Originally posted by esdad71
Then give me all your points poot, it was these guys..

en.wikipedia.org...

Where does it say ANYTHING about WTC 6? Good job posting some random words that mean/prove/infer NOTHING... as usual. Moreover, your worthless quote is from wiki... you could type in whatever you wanted it to say... yet it still says NOTHING GERMAINE to your statement.

You should seriously be banned for posting misleading information...

[edit on 9-4-2007 by Pootie]

[edit on 9-4-2007 by Pootie]

en.wikipedia.org...

There you go. Was that hard? Now where are your points???

Originally posted by esdad71
en.wikipedia.org...

There you go. Was that hard? Now where are your points???

Sweet... more wiki... I just edited it so that you are now wrong ... who were they contracted by?

You are ridiculous man. Really. AMEC did alot of the cleanup at the sites.

If you want some more, AMEC also did the repairs to the Pentagon prior to the attacks. Maybe they rigged explosives. I am giving you the shortest, simplest thing to read since you usually do not read the posts or links I present, you jsut toos them aside.

Originally posted by esdad71
You are ridiculous man. Really. AMEC did alot of the cleanup at the sites.

who contracted them? CDI? Tulley?

I know that they worked alongside Tulley. They were independently contracted as were the others. AMEC was however the only one to work both WTC 1 and 2 also.

[edit on 9-4-2007 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71
I know that they worked alongside Tulley. They were independently contracted as were the others. AMEC was however the only one to work both WTC 1 and 2 also.

With Tulley and CDI?

Tulley subbed out work to CDI and "owned" that quadrant. So did they sub word out to AMEC or did CDI?

AMEC worked alongside Tulley. As far as I have researched, there was no other sub contracting with CDI as far as AMEC is concerned.

WTC7 was build to last even through the heaviest of fires. Steel frame structures do not fail from fires. Most recently the fire in Madrid proves this.

As far as demo-ing a building, it´s quite easy when at construction time a layer of C4 is sandwiched into the concrete support structure to accomodate controlled emergency demolition. (for safety reasons ofcourse). Small timed detonators the size of a pen into strategic inspection ports did the trick on all three buildings.

Ask David Rockefeller about the WTC C4 failsafe and see his response. (Duck)

Miauw that one, kitten.

[edit on 9-4-2007 by Truth4hire]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But do we have any paperwork on builidng 6 ? Because builidng 6 was PULLED. I will have to see if i can find out which contractor had the contract to PULL building 6, maybe they had or know who had the contract for builidng 7.

well thats probably not a bad place to look, however the basic flaw in that plan is that by the time 6 was brought down the IC was no longer in command and likely had nothing to do with the pulling of 6 or any other buildings for cleanup.

hell, the simplest thing would be for someone to simply call the guy that was the IC on 911 and just ask him if he ordered the demo of wtc7

if he did and it was part of the legit operations that day im sure he'd have no problems answering a few questions.

wow where to even begin with this one:

Originally posted by Truth4hire
WTC7 was build to last even through the heaviest of fires. Steel frame structures do not fail from fires. Most recently the fire in Madrid proves this.

no, it proves the building in madrid was able to withstand a fire. if steel is so able to withstand fire, why did they bother with the fireproofing? just curious, not sayin nothing bout nothin there. simple question. seeems a waste of money to me though.

As far as demo-ing a building, it´s quite easy when at construction time a layer of C4 is sandwiched into the concrete support structure to accomodate controlled emergency demolition. (for safety reasons ofcourse). Small timed detonators the size of a pen into strategic inspection ports did the trick on all three buildings.

i first read this expecting to scroll down and read "yeah, just kidding" but youre serious arent you? wow...ummm...where to start with that one.

ok, so first i want to make sure i get this straight, your supposition is that they sandwiched C4 in between layers of concrete when they built these things 30 years ago?

ok...uh, so you DO know that explosives have a shelf life right and that over time they break down and while they may explode, its iffy at best?

yeah, try looking that up and see if it stll fits your theory.

i wont even get into the problems of putting load bearing concrete on what ammounts to play doh and hoping its stable and doesnt crack all to hell in the process.

Ask David Rockefeller about the WTC C4 failsafe and see his response. (Duck)

and i suppose you can upload a video of you interviewing dave on this matter? no? so youre guessing and hypothesising and just flat out posting opinions on that one huh?
ok, well when u get that interview let us know, id love to see it. along with ANY proof there was ANY explosives anywhere near those buildings.



edit: missed a tag on my post to make it appear someone else had edited my post. this is not the case.

[edit on 9-4-2007 by Damocles]

Originally posted by Damocles

Ask David Rockefeller about the WTC C4 failsafe and see his response.

and i suppose you can upload a video of you interviewing dave on this matter? no? so youre guessing and hypothesising and just flat out posting opinions on that one huh?
ok, well when u get that interview let us know, id love to see it. along with ANY proof there was ANY explosives anywhere near those buildings.

Now why would Dave give himself heart failure by coming out of the closet like that? Does it really matter what I post? Does it really matter that military came in to finish parts of the welding during construction?

Yes, I´m serious. I am also seriously searching ATS to see why this is muffled away cleanly every time it has been brought up.

"Don´t step on the green stuff". Watch this space.

Originally posted by Truth4hire
Now why would Dave give himself heart failure by coming out of the closet like that? Does it really matter what I post? Does it really matter that military came in to finish parts of the welding during construction?

Yes, I´m serious. I am also seriously searching ATS to see why this is muffled away cleanly every time it has been brought up.

"Don´t step on the green stuff". Watch this space.

well at least you admit you have nothing of value to implicate david rockefeller.

also, as to why no one really believes that c4 was planted during construction, you can figure this out on yer own. go buy some playdoh and see how long it lasts before it gets all hard and crumbly. if its still soft and squishy in 30 years, let me know and THEN...maybe, ill buy your theory. oh, and if u wonder why i make a playdoh reference, figure out what c4 is made of and you'll understand.