Any "pull it" experts around?

by **NewKid** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:26 pm

Silverstein's comments keep getting cited as an admission of imploding building 7. Now I've never really had a firm opinion on what's going on here, but if anybody knows the ins and outs on this, I have a few questions: 1. Was there really a firefighting unit in the building at the time of the call to Silverstein? I see conflicting stories on this. 2. If so, was the decision to pull out the firefighters just in the nick of time to prevent the building from collapsing on the departing firemen? That's the impression one gets from listening to Silverstein's remarks. But then of course, those last remarks are in voice over as the viewer sees the building collapse. 3. Is it possible Silverstein's remarks were edited and strung together to make it appear as though the building collapsed right after the decision to pull? Might this have been accidental? Or is that how he really said it? And with the reference to 'pull building 6' in another segment, how likely is it the viewers would take away that Silverstein meant 'pull them' and not 'pull it'? (Killtown I think has a tape recording of someone calling a CD company on the phone and asking them what 'pull it' means, and the say something like 'bring the building down.' My sense is that that 'pull it' is probably just a term that means to bring down a building generally, and not by any particular means.) 4. Who made the Nova documentary and what is their relationship to Silverstein, if any? 5. If Silverstein were really referring to pulling the building, then it seems to me all he's doing is essentially ratifying a decision that's effectively already been made by the OEM or the other govt tenants in the building to bring down the building (ostensibly for safety reasons). In other words, the captain is really just trying to get Silverstein to rubber stamp a decision and he is really just the intermediary delivering that news to Silverstein. So Silverstein is merely using the language the fireman uses when he 'asks' Silverstein. 6. Now there does seem to be some talk that day of witnesses saying 'get back, they're going to bring the building down' kind of stuff, which is hard to explain by fire. On the other hand, how in the world are you going to tell the firemen and Silverstein that there is some plan that involves explosives already in the buildings? Wouldn't that raise a few alarm bells? Would Silverstein want to admit on tape that he assented to that? 7. But if that was the cover story of the day, it quickly vanished as the official story was taking shape. Now the Nova thing is way after Silverstein would have known that saying anything about bringing the building down artificially would be a big no-no. So why is he saying this on camera in a govt documentary? And why in the world would his lawyers let him go on camera about the subject without briefing him beforehand? He was either in litigation or in anticipation of litigation at the time of the interview. So why would he not be fully alert to the dangers of saying anything about this call if it were potentially dangerous? And why would the Nova people keep it in the film? It's not an extemporaneous remark, it's not live tv, etc., so why is it left in the film, if it's so damning? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 7/13/06 9:30 pm

by **NewKid** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:00 am

I actually want to believe 9-11 myths on this, but it's so disingenous that I think there's something more here. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Problem #1, Larry Silverstein is not a demolition contractor, neither was the fire department chief, so why should we assume they’d be using slang demolition terms?<hr></blockquote> Because that's the term they're using with him, and they got it from the OEM or govt tenant people? People always incorporate terms other people use in conversations. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Problem #2, Silverstein says "they made that decision to pull", for instance -- the Fire Department. If "pull" means "demolish", then he's saying the Fire Department may not have decided to bring the building down if they couldn't contain the fire, but because it was beyond them, they decided to blow it up. Does this make sense? Not in the slightest.<hr></blockquote> I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting it was the fire department's idea or that they were the ones doing it. They seem more like the messenger to me in any conceivable "pull it"-means-demolish argument. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Problem #3, Silverstein is suggesting that the decision to demolish the building was optional. It might not have happened. Does this fit with the idea of a convenient insurance scam? No, not at all.<hr></blockquote> Silverstein would be saying "yeah, I agree, there's been such a loss of life, maybe they're right, and the smartest thing to do is bring it down." It's not his idea and he doesn't even need to be in on any insurance scam for that interpretation either. He could just be ratifying the decision of the OEM or whoever. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Problem #4, why would the Fire Department willingly agree to engage in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud?<hr></blockquote> Again, assuming facts not necessary. The fire dept could very be informing Silverstein of the building tenants' decision. They're not part of any insurance scam. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Problem #5, and since when do Fire Departments blow up buildings anyway?<hr></blockquote> They don't. That's quite a disingenous remark. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Problem #6, and if it's so obvious that WTC7 was demolished, then why are the insurance companies not suing Silverstein for fraud? <hr></blockquote> It's not a bad question. But it many be because the insurance companies may very well have been involved in 9-11 or financial scams related to 9-11. Have you ever heard of collusive litigation? I know Manhatten real estate developers sure have. BTW, have you read his deposition or testimony in the case? Has anyone? Is he even asked about this? The real question is why he would say it if it were against his interest. He might not know what other people would do with it. It's not necessarily why others didn't burn him on it. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Problem #7, and why would Silverstein admit this on television?<hr></blockquote> Good question. Perhaps his remarks were edited to put him in a bad light. Have you checked on that? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>There is a problem with this account, in that it mentions firefighters being in the building, and by all accounts the WTC7 firefighting effort was over by that time. Some people say this is proof that Silverstein is lying, although of course there are other possibilities: maybe Silverstein didn’t remember every detail of the conversation correctly when he recalled it some months later, say. Or perhaps Silverstein simply assumed from the conversation that there were firefighters in the building.<hr></blockquote> But then why is the fire captain calling him? Wouldn't the captain know there are no firemen in the building? And what would he be asking Silverstein permission for if there were no firemen in his building? He doesn't need Silverstein's permission to order firemen who aren't in the building to get to safety. <a href="http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html" target="top">911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html</a> The rest of it is not very convincing. And doesn't really explain why Sunder says in the Pop Mechanics piece that there was no firefighting in WTC 7. Or why The FEMA report says no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY. Or why the NYT says Fellini supposedly ordered the firemen away at 11:30am for safety reasons. And yet, the press release put out by a spokesman in very weaselish language says there were. (Note the state dept misinfo page cites this too.) And if Silverstein merely remembered wrong or assumed incorrectly in the interview, why by the time the press release comes out, do they not correct that? The firehouse magazine stuff isn't very helpful for the official story and it's well after the fact. So he seems to concede that there are no firefighting operations, but instead says that they were close by and had to get back. But again, why do you need Silverstein's permission to get people away from a dangerous scene? You only need Silverstein's okay if they're abandoning the firefighting operations that according to official sources aren't in effect. And he just disses Indira Singh and she's not the only who says that. All very strange. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 7/14/06 1:02 am

Any "pull it" experts around?

Any "pull it" experts around?

Re: Any "pull it" experts around?

Who is online