lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 8, 2006 1:02:01 GMT -4
But Silverstein is not a demolitionist. And he grew up through the 30's and 40's, when "pulling" a building was common slang for building demolition. It's perfectly feasible that he would still refer to a demolition as "pulling". . Citation please True it does sound like one shortly followed the other but it also sounds like they saw it collapse together. If they were together the commader wouldn't have called him Also numerous aspects of the quote contradict the demolotion theory.. IIRC there were still firefighters outside the building also it's possible the publicist was mistaken about the time of day
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 8, 2006 3:45:28 GMT -4
- Why would he talk to the Fire Chief about this?Possibly because the NYFD was the authority during this time.. They were in charge of deciding whether to battle the fires, or to evacuate the area, etc. The phone call could be the Fire Commander giving an update to Silverstein and an opportunity for him to weigh his options. -Why would he talk about this during a TV interview?That's a head-scratcher. Only he knows for sure. It may have been a foul-up of the intended plan. Perhaps they were going to admit to demolishing it due to fears that sensitive documents were left unguarded, or some other reason(s). There were many firefighters and others who had been informed that the building was going to collapse - hours before it did. That is, not just told to clear the area for "safety reasons" - possible collapse. They were told that it would collapse. There was a safety perimeter created similar to...a controlled demolition. -If he so obviously meant pull the building why do only CTist see it that way?Just as only non-CTists believe it means the firefighting effort or firefighters, each version supports the respective viewpoint. That means it should be judged on its own merits as unbiased as possible. That is easier said than done, but it's the only way to assess it without prejudice. -Explain these aspects of the FULL quote
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me 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 just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
“I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire…”
-Sounds to me like the commander was telling him they were giving up putting out the fire or at least suggesting to Silverstein that they give up.It would mean that if they had not decided not to fight the fires before noon, and had not already cleared away from the building hours before. But they had, which is why the "decision to pull" means to demolish the building (unless it meant to pull out their hair or something) -If the fires were as small as you claim why did the commander doubt they could contain it? Why did Felini conclude the building was unsafe?That seems odd, considering they had let it burn for several hours, and the fires were still nowhere near to spreading into a huge inferno. Maybe it's related to reports of broken water mains, but I don't know. Unless it was part of a plan to pretend the fires were uncontrollable....The order by Fellini is also unclear, but since the building was already evacuated, that would allow the firefighters to turn to more urgent matters - helping injured people, etc. “…and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it…'
-Why would a man who had just murdered thousands of people suddenly be concerned with a couple of firemen or no firemen since you claim none were close enough to be injured by a collapse?It can be reasoned in the same way one wonders why he said all this in the first place -that possibly it was part of the story - to make the demolition a necessity and admit it publically. -How would the other deaths that day justify demolishing the building with pre-planted explosives?For insurance payouts. Or to destroy sensitive CIA files. Or any number of unknown reasons. I'll address the last couple later.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jun 8, 2006 5:49:05 GMT -4
Turbonium I have seen this issue discussed so often and thoroughly it's mind boggling that anybody who has truly and objectively heard both sides of it would still suggest that the most logical explanation was that 'pull it' meant to set off explosives to demolish the building.
Is it impossible? I suppose not. Is it the most logical explanation? Turb my man, that leaves the realm of honest investigation and lumbers right into woo woo land.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 8, 2006 6:45:31 GMT -4
apart from the simple fact that when he says "pull it" they have been discussing the firefighting effort, and having even mentioned the building. Your can't refer an it to a noun that hasn't occured at that point in the sentence.
I was gazing at a castle and thought that we needed to paint it. Then I walked from the room and saw the table.
The it in the above statment can't refer to the the Table.
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me 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 just pull it.'" The building hasn't been mentioned, the it cannot refer to a noun that has not been present.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Jun 8, 2006 7:51:48 GMT -4
Nothing else fits with his comments. Even his comments easily make the most sense in view of a controlled demolition...
You are assuming that Silverstein's comments are based on his having a perfectly accurate understanding of events at the time, and of his perfectly remembering what he knew and said and exactly when he knew it and said it. First of all, it is perfectly possible that Silverstein misremembered what time of day the conversation occurred. Presumably you are aware that people under major stress are likely to confuse the timing, and even the order, of events. Second, you merely assume that Silverstein knew the building had been evacuated when he made the statement. Why would he necessarily have received a play-by-play on the firefighting effort? He and the FDNY leadership were all quite preoccupied with many different problems at the time. Possibly he said "maybe you'd better pull it" and misunderstood the response. Or perhaps the Fire Department commander, being in a rush to deal with some other issue, merely said "yes, Mr. Silverstein," and hung up, without bothering to explain that the building had already been evacuated. The point is, you just don't know.
The claim that Silverstein confessed to ordering 7 WTC demolished is clearly an extraordinary claim; the claim that he was referring to evacuating the building is not. Thus, the burden of proof is on those who claim that demolition was implied. Further, the explanation that Silverstein misremembered the time or didn't know the building had already been evacuated is by far the simpler explanation, adequately explains the observed facts, and is thus preferred.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 8, 2006 8:14:06 GMT -4
So Silverstein had the building imploded. When did he have the building's explosives placed and wired? Why did he do this? Was it in anticipation of the CD of the twin towers? Where do the planes fit in? (or do the "holo-planes" come into play here?). You and your type have constructed a scenario here of incredible proportion. Now Silverstein has a new WTC7 to play with. Do you think this one is wired as well? I see "pull it" as getting folks away from the building. In the post WTC1&2 confusion, I suspect there were still numbers of firefighters searching nearby (within a hundred yards or so of 7) rubble for their co workers missing from the collapses. Communications were poor and confused that day. The times of various things are uncertain, temporal distortion was common in reading the accounts. Finally, if the fire chief(s) knew of the WTC7 CD plan, why was it designated the pre-planned site for the city's disaster command post for a WTC1/2 fire event? This whole scenario implicates an awful lot of people. It just seems terribly implausible in comparison with the existing physical evidence of the day.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 8, 2006 9:07:56 GMT -4
That is the best you have, a supposition that he might have meant something base on what you think was slang years ago. And for this you casually accuse people of murder?No. First, I already said nobody was injured or killed from the WTC 7 collapse. Everyone was ordered away from the building for safety reasons. So I haven't accused anyone of murder, "casually" or otherwise. Second, the slang "pull" is not something I "think" was used years ago, it was used years ago, according to articles that you can easily look up for yourself. And, the "best" I have is that the only logical explanation for "pull it" is building demolition. More bullsh*t obviously if Silverstein was guilty of demoing 7 WTC he was involved in or at least had foreknowledge of the attacks. If the FD commander and the others who "decided to pull" decided to demo it they were at the least accessories after the fact to the murder of almost 3000 people (and at the time believed to be more) including hundreds of their fellow firefighters. Why would guys who spent their careers risking their lives to save those of strangers do such a thing? Don't play bullsh*t semantic games and insult our intelligence if you are accusing people of being murders at least own up to it. Ditto this. Not only is it murder but mass murder. Your best piece of evidence is your interpretation of one conversation. You have no plausible scenario on how the explosives were placed in either of the three buildings or any evidence on how the explosions could have been set off in the order that they were. Just waving your hands and saying remote control was used to detonate the bombs is pretty lame. Still you are accusing Silverstein and many others of being mass murderers. The issues surrounding the WTC have been well discussed here and you have had your say. I think that you should be banned for continuously making such vile, slanderous accusations without the slightest evidence. This should be done to prevent the board from becoming tainted by your presence.
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Jun 8, 2006 10:22:36 GMT -4
So where are the fires? Or even one flame? Inside the building, where do you think the smoke is coming from? You've seen pictures of flames coming from the lower floors of the building early in the day, and you've admitted that there was no firefighting all day, do you think the fires went out on their own, or the spread upwards? Ever heard the expression "where there's smoke, there's fire"? Well watch the video again, there's smoke coming from the ENTIRE south face of the building. And the smoke shows that the wind is coming from the northwest, which explains why the west side of the building is clear in the picture and video. You missed my point again. I wasn't talking about the det cord, I was talking about the explosives and the triggers. How were they kept intact inside the fire? No, it's not. There's no sign of any explosives going off anywhere in the building. There is sign of mechanical collapse progressing for 30 seconds or so before the building comes down. *edited to fix quoting
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 8, 2006 12:18:45 GMT -4
If it's so easy to look up some articles that say that "pull it" is demolition slang for "destroy the building" then let's see some links (and NOT to conspiracy believer websites). I have yet to see anyone make a solid argument that "pull it" means what you say it means.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 8, 2006 21:17:58 GMT -4
-If what you say is true, i.e. that the fire were small and the building wasn’t unstable, where did the danger of people being killed come from. The risk of additional “loss of life” is implicit.
There is always the inherent risk of injury or death to those who fight building fires (or most any type of fires), whether large or small in scale, and whatever level of structural stability. Silverstein said "there's been such a tremendous loss of life" in reference to the deaths of workers and firefighters in the towers' collapses. And the Fire Chief only said they weren't sure about being able to contain the fire. - he said nothing about the fires being too large to fight, or that the building was too unstable to risk taking further action. One firefighter who did an interior perimeter check on one floor (9th or 10th, IIRC) made no note about structural instability, nor that any large fires were visible anywhere along his floor perimeter sweep.
-According to the quote he only reached the conclusion that “the smartest thing to do is just pull it” AFTER being told the fire department might not be able to “contain the fire”
Yes, we all know that. But the fact is that they had long since made the decision to not make any effort to fight the fires, and had also long since cleared away from the building.
-he is making a suggestion (“maybe the smartest thing to do”) not coluding or giving an order.
True, it may not be a direct order, only a suggestion. Finding out who would have been most responsible and who would have played a lesser role would most likely require a full investigation. Silverstein may still be found culpable to some degree, as an accessory to the crime or ?. But that would be up to the various authorities to decide.
“…And they made that decision to pull”
- i.e. the decision was made by the dept. NOT Silverstein.
Yes, as noted above.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 8, 2006 22:01:47 GMT -4
No crime? How about insurance fraud and uuuh several thousand counts of first degree murder? Because if they had secretly pre-wired 7 for demolition this would prove foreknowledge of the attacks
I agree and stand corrected that there would be a crime - of insurance fraud.
But I strongly disagree that those guilty of the covert demolition of WTC 7 would therefore be automatically guilty of mass murder, or any murder. Why? Because it doesn't prove in any way that they had foreknowledge of the attacks. For example, they could simply say that they used the situation to protect the interests of the agencies who had offices in the building which contained sensitive documents, etc. Or some other reason(s).
Why would it be automatically assumed that they had any foreknowledge of the attacks?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 8, 2006 22:16:41 GMT -4
More bullsh*t obviously if Silverstein was guilty of demoing 7 WTC he was involved in or at least had foreknowledge of the attacks. If the FD commander and the others who "decided to pull" decided to demo it they were at the least accessories after the fact to the murder of almost 3000 people (and at the time believed to be more) including hundreds of their fellow firefighters. Why would guys who spent their careers risking their lives to save those of strangers do such a thing?
Don't play bullsh*t semantic games and insult our intelligence if you are accusing people of being murders at least own up to it.
As I said, being guilty of the one does not them guilty of the other by default. Authorities would need concrete evidence of foreknowledge of the attacks, and simply pointing to a safely evacuated building being demolished hours later is a far cry from conclusive proof of guilt.. And adding profanities does not add cogency to an unfounded claim.
|
|
|
Post by yodaluver28 on Jun 8, 2006 22:35:26 GMT -4
If they didn't have foreknowledge of the attacks, why would WTC 7 have been prepped with explosives in the first place?
If they didn't have foreknowledge of the attacks, why would the demolition of WTC 7 for safety reasons have to be carried out covertly and then denied? WTC 6 was demolished for safety reasons after it was damaged by debris from the Twin Tower collapses and they've never denied that.
There is no evidence whatsoever that WTC 7 had been rigged for demolition, but let's pretend that it was just for the sake of argument, those responsible for having it rigged would have to be involved or at least have foreknowledge of the attacks because of the amount of time it would take to prep the buildings for a demolition. The demolition of a 47 story high building like WTC 7 would have required weeks, more likely months, of carefully planning and positioning a massive amount of explosives in just the right places, since the building wouldn't be prepped for demolition mechanically beforehand, without having any of these explosives detected by all of the people who worked there, all the people in the surrounding WTC complex, and without them detonating when the building was damaged by debris from WTC 1 &2 or the fires that had begun burning. How is this possible? And why would you risk it unless you were a part of the larger conspiracy?
Let's be honest here, the people who believe that WTC 7 was demolished believe it was done as a part of a conspiracy to CD the Twin Towers as well. We all know that.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 8, 2006 23:25:28 GMT -4
Citation pleaseThe 1960's Gradually they began to develop techniques to increase the efficiency of explosive charges, such as pre-cutting steel beams and attaching cables to certain columns to "pull" a structure in a given direction.www.implosionworld.com/history3.htmIt's still a term used today for building demolition through non-explosive methods. In the same video as Silverstein makes his comments, a Ground Zero worker says "They're getting ready to pull the building six" before they demolish it. To pull the walls in and properly direct the collapse during implosion, 98 steel cables were used.www.acppubs.com/article/CA6325450.htmlEven some current explosive demolitions use "pulling" methods.... Crews said there will be cables rigged to pull the walls back into the center of the building.www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-062105-jmn-implosion.2fb1837b.htmlTrue it does sound like one shortly followed the other but it also sounds like they saw it collapse together. If they were together the commader wouldn't have called himI don't think it sounds anything like the two of them watched the collapse together. He makes a distinction between the two groups... "They" made the decision, and then "we" watched the collapse. IIRC there were still firefighters outside the building also it's possible the publicist was mistaken about the time of dayThe firefighters were ordered a safe distance away from the building at 11:30 am. As for the publicist, he said... In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department CommanderWhether or not he actually meant in the morning, someone (him, or Silverstein, or the Fire Chief) is either lying or mistaken about the following.... The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires.And also this... Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed No matter what the actual time of the call was, we do know for certain from several sources that no firefighters, at any time of the day, were ever sent inside the building to fight the fire. With that as a given... The Fire Chief on the scene would seem highly unlikely to be either lying or erroneously telling Silverstein that there were firefighters inside the building. It was well established and well known. Silverstein said nothing to indicate that the Fire Chief told him there were firefighters inside the building. Which makes sense, because there is no reason why the Fire Chief would have told him that. Years later, it is the publicist making this claim, on behalf of Silverstein. That claim is completely unsubstantiated, and makes no sense as to having ever transpired.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 8, 2006 23:29:26 GMT -4
Turbonium I have seen this issue discussed so often and thoroughly it's mind boggling that anybody who has truly and objectively heard both sides of it would still suggest that the most logical explanation was that 'pull it' meant to set off explosives to demolish the building.
Is it impossible? I suppose not. Is it the most logical explanation? Turb my man, that leaves the realm of honest investigation and lumbers right into woo woo land.
Ahhh....pour me another Duff, twin. It's not worth losing valuable drinking time squabbling over!
|
|