Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That sounds GooooooD, Travis. Yet why did they scrub WTC7 FIRST then, when the bodies were next door (so to speak)?

Your question answered itself.

 

[twinstead]

The same way they rigged them to fall mostly into their footprint. Engineering.

Engineering you can't explain and can't find any evidence for. Engineering that just HAD to exist because otherwise you could actually be--GASP!--wrong about 9-11

 

[Craig4]

The same way they rigged them to fall mostly into their footprint. Engineering.

So you have some explosive residue to show us then?

 

[cjnewson88]

The same way they rigged them to fall mostly into their footprint. Engineering.

You just keep digging. Time to put down your shovel and step out of the hole Clayton, because even YOU know you're making stuff up.

 

[Travis]

That sounds GooooooD, Travis. Yet why did they scrub WTC7 FIRST then, when the bodies were next door (so to speak)?

Well WTC7 was a lot easier to get to. It's debris blocked access to the main site as well. Lastly I don't believe they gave it more attention than the other collapses. It was just easier to clean up thus it got done first.

 

[Brass]

Noah, the reason that 99% of your posts are not replied to by anyone is because you, and 00063, provide no useful contributions to any discussion. You're basically just cheerleaders for the 9/11 bedunker crowd.

Don't you want to be more than that? With all the time you spend posting, can't you do some of your own research?

Also, still waiting to hear back from you about my invitation I proposed a few pages back....

 

[000063]

The same way they rigged them to fall mostly into their footprint. Engineering.

The question was rhetorical. It's physically impossible to do so. It is difficult enough to bring down buildings safely even with regular CDs, when you can knock walls down and plant openly, much less two buildings with large holes in them which could easily have disrupted the hypothetical charges in an entirley experimental manner never tested on such a scale.

Appeal to magic.

I'm betting ergo would say that's irrelevant and you don't kow what you're talking about, while not actually addressing any of your points, or just ignoring you entirely.

Then I or someone would point out that one of Truthers' most common claims is that WTC 7 was largely ignored by the mainstream media, meaning there was less scrutiny involved in its destruction. Logically, the conspirators would want to spirit away evidence from the site getting the most attention first, especially since the debris of the towers would have much, much more evidence.

EDIT: This also brings up Truthers' least favorite question: how did They know the North Tower debris would hit WTC 7 and give Them an excuse?

No, wait, KreeL's a Truther, so ergo would just pat KreeL on the back and talk about how mean the bedunkers are, while not actually making any points.

Travis makes a nice point, though. WTC 7 was removed first for practical logistical reasons in line with the official story, including ease of cleanup. Cleaning it up first is actually inconsistent with a conspiracy theory, and ergo never explained how the evidence was distinguished from the other debris if it never made it to Fresh Kills and was not really examined until after it was removed. He could've just said that they somehow managed to secretly examine it, but that both means contradicting himself and is implausible even by his standards, since the sites had cameras pointed at them all the time.

 

[NoahFence]

Also, still waiting to hear back from you about my invitation I proposed a few pages back....

me too.

 

[Justin39640]

marginal

Wow. That's generous lol.

 

[cjnewson88]

This also brings up Truthers' least favorite question: how did They know the North Tower debris would hit WTC 7 and give Them an excuse?

The same way they rigged them to fall mostly into their footprint. Engineering.

Hang on a second, isn't it the mainstream truther belief that flight 93 was supposed to hit WTC7? And because it was compromised by passengers, was shot down? If this was the case, why would they need to put all the effort and time into engineering the North tower to hit wtc7 if it was supposed to be hit by an airliner?

Which theory is more correct Clayton?

 

[cantonear1968]

You could always ask him/her directly.

Why? Are you under the impression or illusion that he/she would answer honestly or legitimately?

 

[atavisms]

Hello there

I've been told by a 'debunker' that Larry Silverstein was interviewed on film in 2005 and in that interview he elaborated on what he meant by 'pull it'.

Apparently this video was at one time on youtube. But I am unable to find it anywhere.

Has anyone seen it ? Does anyone have a copy?

As far as I was aware the only single response regarding this comment was a written one by Dara Mcquillan on Silverstein's behalf.

The firefighters were not in the building at the time. They had been pulled at 11am because of a water main problem we are told. One would not call people 'it' you would say 'pull them out' But that wouldnt have been his call anyway..so it makes no sense that he eve said that was what he meant..
It also makes no sense that he would be saying 'let's demolish it.' I dont think it has much relevance.

On the other hand, there is no doubt wtc7 (all 3) was brought down with explosives. You really have to be in complete denial (or dependent on nothing buy mainstream sources and looked closely enough) to not realize that wtc 1 2 & 7 were brought down with preplanted explosives. Not for any reason other than that a broad range of observations and facts on the ground all concur with one another and point definitively to this one conclusion.

 

[GlennB]

... wtc 1 2 & 7 were brought down with preplanted explosives. Not for any reason other than that a broad range of observations and facts on the ground all concur with one another and point definitively to this one conclusion.

There's a fairly regular TV program over here called "Blowdown" which documents the work of Controlled Demolition Inc. It airs, iirc, on Discovery Channel..

You should watch a few episodes. You'd learn the meaning of explosions in this context. You'd also learn how absurd it is to propose prepping vast, heavily used buildings for CD in secret.

 

[atavisms]

My REASONABLE question is:

How did they get sorted?

Apparently very rapidly and precisely. The main structural elements (with the exception of a few chosen pieces, one sent to Kennedy airport, a couple made it to Staten Island including one huge bent beam. But in general the structural elements were loaded on GPS monitored trucks and dumped into barges and shipped for recycling, yes overseas to China and I think maybe India too..(sold at bargain rates). The process is reviewed in this doc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

what we should question is why FEMA volunteers were tasked with the initial investigation. An investigation initially allotted a measly 600k with the investigators not even allowed access to ground zero for 30 days! at which time they were given what one called a 'guided tour.' There was no real investigation. We know this because despite such extreme levels of structural damage and the obviously highly explosive events the destruction of the towers entailed, no investigator ever tested for explosive residues.

The fema bpat was issued in may of 2002 coincided with completion of the cleanup at ground zero. The smaller debris was trucked to freshkills landfill and put into three separate piles. The only investigation conducted there besides samples taken for www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
were to look for human remains. This went on for 2 years in tents on conveyor belts..and thousands of small fragments of human remains were identified. (200 dna tests came back matching a single person), even after all this well over 1000 people remain unaccounted for to this day. (That's explosive! )

 

[332nd]

The firefighters were not in the building at the time. They had been pulled at 11am because of a water main problem we are told. One would not call people 'it' you would say 'pull them out' But that wouldnt have been his call anyway..so it makes no sense that he eve said that was what he meant..
It also makes no sense that he would be saying 'let's demolish it.' I dont think it has much relevance. [

Why would you call an operation "them"? (Before you start babbling about no firefighting in 7, please try to remember that firefighters also rescue people, search for survivors, things like that.)

On the other hand, there is no doubt wtc7 (all 3) was brought down with explosives. You really have to be in complete denial (or dependent on nothing buy mainstream sources and looked closely enough) to not realize that wtc 1 2 & 7 were brought down with preplanted explosives. Not for any reason other than that a broad range of observations and facts on the ground all concur with one another and point definitively to this one conclusion.

"No doubt"? Really? Then how do you explain the complete lack of evidence of high explosives? Think about it... an entire theory about termite had to be created to get around the lack of the sound of HE going off just before the collapse. Then when truthers finally figured out that termite isn't an explosive they had to come up with adding magical properties to nanothermite that made it an explosive that was somehow quieter than regular explosives. You yourself have presented as "evidence" high temperatures in the debris pile as evidence of explosives yet HE wouldn't account for that (even if you 2800deg was correct) & you've pointed to explosions going off during the collapse as evidence of CD... You really don't see them problem with that?

 

[cjnewson88]

Finally, a truther who doesn't believe 'pull it' it suspicious. Congrats Atavisms, you just gained 1 point, placing you above our resident truthers MM, ergo, RedIbis and Clayton.

 

[Clayton Moore]

The firefighters were not in the building at the time. They had been pulled at 11am because of a water main problem we are told. One would not call people 'it' you would say 'pull them out' But that wouldnt have been his call anyway..so it makes no sense that he eve said that was what he meant..
It also makes no sense that he would be saying 'let's demolish it.' I dont think it has much relevance.

On the other hand, there is no doubt wtc7 (all 3) was brought down with explosives. You really have to be in complete denial (or dependent on nothing buy mainstream sources and looked closely enough) to not realize that wtc 1 2 & 7 were brought down with preplanted explosives. Not for any reason other than that a broad range of observations and facts on the ground all concur with one another and point definitively to this one conclusion.

He never said it was his decision.

Silverstein stated in a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds', "I remember getting a call from the 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 then we watched the building collapse."[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

 

[NoahFence]

Apparently very rapidly and precisely. (That's explosive! )

That doesn't answer the question.

Steel beams were strewn 5 (?) stories high, across 16 acres. There is no way humanly possible that the location of the beams with thermite residue would be known ahead of time.

This means that people on the ground had to separate the beams with evidence from the clean ones. And they had to do it while looking for friends and family.

I'm not looking for "Apparently".

I want someone to tell me how in the world that happened. THOUSANDS of people were at the site. Was everybody - literally, EVERYBODY "in on it"?

 

[RedIbis]

And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."[18]

I think it's funny that debunkers overlook this part of the quote, as if in English, people string together clauses sequentially when they actually mean hours between the events.

Or maybe we're supposed to think that the decision to pull the firefighters led to the collapse, which makes about as much sense.

 

[NoahFence]

I think it's funny that debunkers overlook this part of the quote, as if in English, people string together clauses sequentially when they actually mean hours between the events.

Or maybe we're supposed to think that the decision to pull the firefighters led to the collapse, which makes about as much sense.

How do you figure we overlook that? That would be dishonest. That's your arena, not ours.