What did Larry Silverstein mean by "Pull It"?

posted by fleabit
What I want to know is this. Why did no one see them doing this? Do you know much work and how many hours of planning and actual placing of explosives, and running of miles of wiring takes? And not ONE person saw this happening? People supposedly placed wreckage on a lawn clearly visible to the world, and no one saw this happening. WTC: Supposedly wired for explosions, it was a huge pair of buildings, which would take who knows how many days or weeks to prep for demolition.. but no one noticed it happening?

Where is this FBI agent going with these two untagged pieces of aircraft debris? Do you notice that nobody is paying him any attention. Out in front of him out of sight is another piece of aircraft debris which sat there for hours untagged. Did the FBI agent place it there? Is he going to plant those pieces in his hands somewhere? Did he get them out of that van?



It would be quite easy wouldn't it to just place the pieces on the lawn? Which of those rescue workers is going to ask a FBI agent what he is doing? What about that piece behind him which somehow became unofficial? What about this piece which Congresswoman Berkeley photographed? Was it also planted? How come there is only one photo in existence?





[edit on 12/13/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by Vilyariel
What I want to know, is who refers to a group of firemen as "it"?

wouldnt you say, "pull them out" not "pull it"? even if it were a conversation like, "hey, this is dangerous, we've got a team of guys in there now.. what are we gonna do?"... you'd say "pull them out"...

this is a main point of the OP, if i understand correctly.

a way to strengthen the argument is to show some examples of other fires where firemen have been ordered to evacuate. many good examples have been given to identify what "pull it" means in demolition terms, but now someone needs to give some examples of what orders are usually given to firefighters when they need to get out.

it might not prove what "pull it" meant in this context, but it would definitely help. if other terms, such as "pull out" or "pull them" or "get out" are most commonly used, it would add more credibility to the theory that "pull it" meant something different than "evacuate".

Originally posted by pinch
Wow. Its quite obvious you don't like it when someone disagrees with your comments.

As far as the Silverstein comment, if I am not able to provide example of other, similar claims from the troother groups, what is the use of a discussion board? Invisible planes, nuclear bombs, holograms and space-based destructo weapons have all been put forth and indeed are current theories of causal events of 9/11 put forth by those who claim to be searchers of "truth".

I am not derailing anything, "trolling", insulting anyone (unless you do not have the power of your beliefs), and I don't think you should be the arbiter of "inappropriate comments".

So, for the record, I believe that claiming that Silverstein told the whole world on global television that Building 7 was demolished by pre-positioned explosives makes as much sense as nuclear bombs, invisible planes, holograms and space-based destructo beams.

I don't like it when someone uses classic disinfo baiting tactics to attempt to ridicule someone's statements rather than attempt to refute the information provided, which is what you do.

As for Silverstein's comments I have already shown that the firefighters who contradict Silverstein's comments were clearly lying about at least one fact, in a court of law if a witness has been proved to be lying their whole testimony must be thrown out, why should we treat their lies any different?

Again for your comment about us "troothers":
1g.) Political Baiting: You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling, and related right-versus-left political bickering while posting in any topical forum or discussion thread on AboveTopSecret.com. You will not alter political candidate names or party affiliations in order to insult or deride the opposition. i.e. "Shrillary", "McSame", "Obamanazi's", "Repukelicans", etc...

As for "Invisible planes, nuclear bombs, holograms and space-based destructo weapons" I don't believe that anyone besides you have mentioned these here, neither do they have anything to do with this thread topic. It's a clear attempt to ridicule and belittle, change your tactics or leave the thread.

As far as me being the "arbiter of inappropriate comments," I don't see the mods doing anything about it, so I'm taking it into my own hands until they do.

And for your comment "I believe that claiming that Silverstein told the whole world on global television that Building 7 was demolished by pre-positioned explosives makes as much sense as nuclear bombs, invisible planes, holograms and space-based destructo beams."
That is wonderful that you believe this but we are having a discussion about the facts of the situation which can be backed up by evidence, proof, and references, not our beliefs. As I stated before if you're going to attempt to contradict anything that has been said here people may actually take it as a constructive addition to the thread, but if you're here to point fingers to ridicule and belittle just leave the thread.

reply to post by thedman


I have already shown that the firefighters who contradict Silverstein's comments were clearly lying about at least one fact, in a court of law if a witness has been proved to be lying their whole testimony must be thrown out, why should we treat their lies any different?

Originally posted by fleabit
What I want to know is this. Why did no one see them doing this? Do you know much work and how many hours of planning and actual placing of explosives, and running of miles of wiring takes? And not ONE person saw this happening?

This has already been explained in this thread. Read previous comments and you will get your answer.

As for the pentagon "wreckage" this thread is not about the pentagon or the towers.

oh c'mon now... it seems legit... The building had fires on all floors and so they sent in a fireproof demo team with a "quick pull" kit. Seen it a hundred times. Its well known that our steel structures are not built to spanish building specs.

Originally posted by pteridine
Another interesting thread. I find it difficult to believe that any demo charges were set in advance. This is an especially dangerous thing to do in buildings occupied by people carrying on daily commerce and business, much less while in an emergency situation filled with uncertain events. Setting charges to destroy #7 would require drilling multiple holes, placing charges, placing caps, tamping charges, checking circuits, checking grounds, and running the lines to the blasting machine. This would be a wire job because anything that would use radio in this situation would be likely to fail or have a cell phone accidentally do something really loud at the wrong time.

Research how thermate is employed rather than traditional demolition methods and you will get your answer.

There would be no "drilling multiple holes, placing charges, placing caps, tamping charges" Placing thermate is not like placing other demolition charges, research this and you will get your answer.

The rest of your comments have already been addressed here, but you would have seen that if you had actually read the entire thread.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by ashamedamerican]

Originally posted by randomguy53
oh c'mon now... it seems legit... The building had fires on all floors and so they sent in a fireproof demo team with a "quick pull" kit. Seen it a hundred times. Its well known that our steel structures are not built to spanish building specs.

If you watched the video of the WTC 7 fires they were not "on all floors" as you said, it was a couple small fires, on a couple floors.

Do you have any evidence or sources you can link us to regarding your 'fireproof demo team with a "quick pull" kit." Seen it a hundred times.' or 'Its well known that our steel structures are not built to spanish building specs.' comments?

reply to post by ashamedamerican


About the only thing I could find of demolition using thermate is placing the thermate grenade on the object to be destroyed or disabled. This is what is usually meant by "demolition" in the military. Placing a grenade down the barrel of a cannon, placing one on the engine of a jeep/tank/plane/weapons cache/etc is how the usually do it. Its very hard to find anything on using thermate in building demolition. Its an incendiary, not an explosive. You can't control the thermite/ate once it starts.

Plus I don't know if anyone saw this or mentioned it but, they couldn't even cut an SUV in half with 1,000lbs of thermite on Mythbusters.
www.youtube.com...

The fuller version is here:
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by ashamedamerican
Research how thermate is employed rather than traditional demolition methods and you will get your answer.

There would be no "drilling multiple holes, placing charges, placing caps, tamping charges" Placing thermate is not like placing other demolition charges, research this and you will get your answer.

The rest of your comments have already been addressed here, but you would have seen that if you had actually read the entire thread.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by ashamedamerican]

I have a serious question about your comment. Why wouldn't demolition teams use thermate to bring down buildings? Why go through all of the hassle of gutting a building, drilling holes and placing shape charges if all they can do is use thermate? Is thermate much more expensive? I was just curious, not refuting your opinion.

Originally posted by thedman
Spent most of that afternoon
listening to radio transmissions from the scene at my firehouse

So you must have heard all those transmissions of explosions and secondry devices then?

"There's a bomb in the building, move out" comes to mind. Don't deny it because it's caught on video.

But I'm sure "fog of war" will be the excuse. But yet, you'll believe everything else when it comes to other things you want to believe in. Right?

Originally posted by ashamedamerican

Originally posted by randomguy53
oh c'mon now... it seems legit... The building had fires on all floors and so they sent in a fireproof demo team with a "quick pull" kit. Seen it a hundred times. Its well known that our steel structures are not built to spanish building specs.

If you watched the video of the WTC 7 fires they were not "on all floors" as you said, it was a couple small fires, on a couple floors.

Do you have any evidence or sources you can link us to regarding your 'fireproof demo team with a "quick pull" kit." Seen it a hundred times.' or 'Its well known that our steel structures are not built to spanish building specs.' comments?

Sorry.. i forgot to add that i was being sarcastic.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ashamedamerican

 

About the only thing I could find of demolition using thermate is placing the thermate grenade on the object to be destroyed or disabled. This is what is usually meant by "demolition" in the military. Placing a grenade down the barrel of a cannon, placing one on the engine of a jeep/tank/plane/weapons cache/etc is how the usually do it. Its very hard to find anything on using thermate in building demolition. Its an incendiary, not an explosive. You can't control the thermite/ate once it starts.

Thermite grenades and thermite or thermate cutting charges are not the same.
As for thermire ir thermate being incendiary and not an explosive, it actually can be explosive, check out the research of Steven Jones and he explains this in detail. The best simple and quick explanation I can give is, if the ingredients are fine enough it does become explosive.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by thedman
Spent most of that afternoon
listening to radio transmissions from the scene at my firehouse

So you must have heard all those transmissions of explosions and secondry devices then?

"There's a bomb in the building, move out" comes to mind. Don't deny it because it's caught on video.

But I'm sure "fog of war" will be the excuse. But yet, you'll believe everything else when it comes to other things you want to believe in. Right?

Griff, if you are using that quote again, please be sure you remember were it came from and what they were talking about:
www.youtube.com...
Stuyvesant High School bomb scare, 5 BLOCKS away from WTC7.
And for God's sake, please listen to the ENTIRE QUOTE.

geeze, another quote with half of it missing. What is with you people and abusing, twisting, editing quotes?

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
I have a serious question about your comment. Why wouldn't demolition teams use thermate to bring down buildings? Why go through all of the hassle of gutting a building, drilling holes and placing shape charges if all they can do is use thermate? Is thermate much more expensive? I was just curious, not refuting your opinion.

I honestly can't explain that without researching it more, and I believe that some demolition comanies do employ thermite and/or thermate.
As for why they would go through the extra hassle involved in demolishing a building ask yourself this:

"Why go through all of the hassle of gutting a building, drilling holes and placing shape charges if all they can do is" start a couple fires and drop the whole building into it's footprint with minimal collateral damage?

I find that question much more interesting, and revealing of this whole situation.

reply to post by ashamedamerican


That doesn't really answer my question, but that's OK. I guess I was trying to play devil's advocate by asking why wouldn't demolition companies employ the same method that brought down WTC7, if it was indeed thermate.

It just seems like a lot of work for demo companies to spend a couple of months preparing a building for demolition if all they can do is use thermate charges without all of the prep work. You would agree that WTC7 did not have the traditional prep work done that demo companies do to bring down buildings, right?

FYI: I don't believe the official story.

Wikipedia on Thermite

A classic military use for thermite is disabling artillery pieces, and has been used commonly for this purpose since the Second World War. Thermite can permanently disable artillery pieces without the use of explosive charges and therefore can be used when silence is necessary to an operation.

....

Thermite usage is hazardous due to the extremely high temperatures produced and the extreme difficulty in smothering a reaction once initiated. The thermite reaction releases dangerous ultra-violet (UV) light requiring that the reaction not be viewed directly, or that special eye protection (for example, a welder's mask) be worn. Small streams of molten iron released in the reaction can travel considerable distances and may melt through metal containers, igniting their contents. Additionally, flammable metals with relatively low boiling points such as zinc, whose boiling point of 907 °C (1665 °F) is about 1370 °C (2500 °F) below the temperature at which thermite burns, could potentially boil superheated metal violently into the air if near a thermite reaction, where it could then burst into flame as it is exposed to oxygen. Preheating of thermite before ignition can easily be done accidentally, for example by pouring a new pile of thermite over a hot, recently-ignited pile of thermite slag. When ignited, preheated thermite can burn almost instantaneously, releasing a much greater amount of light and heat energy than normal and causing burns and eye damage at what would normally be a reasonably safe distance. The thermite reaction can take place accidentally in industrial locations where abrasive grinding and cutting wheels are used with ferrous metals. Using aluminium in this situation produces an admixture of oxides which is capable of a violent explosive reaction.[3] Mixing water with thermite or pouring water onto burning thermite can cause a phreatomagmatic explosion, spraying hot fragments in all directions.

Wikipedia on Super Thermite

Super Thermite

A super-thermite is a chemical mixture containing an oxidizer and a reducing agent which undergoes a very powerful exothermic reaction when heated to a critical temperature. What separates super-thermites from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminum are not a fine powder, but rather nanometer-sized particulates. This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite.

If you wanted to take down a building without the dozens of explosions making a demolition completely obvious, thermite certainly seems to be the best way to cut through metal without making any noise. Super-thermite is particularly interesting and I doubt the Mythbusters would have access to anything remotely close to the power of super thermite. If normal thermite burns at over 4000 degrees, then super thermite with it's increased reactivity would burn hot enough to melt through metal easily. If anyone would know how to formulate and use super thermite in this way, it would be the government.

There's certainly no way that burning office supplies and ceiling tiles would melt metal no matter how long it burned nor would the rubble still be over 1000 degrees a week later. They don't produce molten metal puddles either which thermite does. It all seems to point to the use of thermite. Demolition crews wouldn't use thermite all the time for demolitions because they have nothing to hide when they blow up aged buildings that no one cares about. There's no reason to do that discreetly which is not the case with 9/11.

reply to post by ashamedamerican


Were these the red chips he was talking about?

However I find his research a little flawed. The whole sulfur thing is a little preposterous because he doesn't take into account the gypsum from the decaying drywall, nor the oil from the tanks as sources.

With respect to thermite "evidence" found, why havent any samples of the steel shown temperatures at or above 4,000F?

[edit on 12/13/2008 by GenRadek]

BBC report that WTC had collapsed while it was still standing.

WTC 7 demolition countdown witness.

Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment.

Why is it so hard to believe that he didn't mean to pull the building, given the evidence from that day?