SILVERSTEIN RESPONDS TO "PULL IT"

[spooked911]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/220605silversteinresponds.htm


Building 7 "Pull It" Comment: Silverstein Responds

Prison Planet | June 22 2005

For a year and a half since this website first gave traction to the story, the Internet and talk radio has buzzed with speculation on what Larry Silverstein meant when he admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack.

We have been resolute in pointing out that to 'pull' a building means to demolish it. The very same PBS documentary features demolition experts using the term 'pull it' as they discuss controlled demolitions of buildings. Watch the clip here.

Speculation around the issue has only increased with Silverstein's refusal to explain his comments.

Now for the first time we can reveal that Silverstein has responded to a question on the subject, but his answer will unfortunately only lead to more conjecture.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

1. He admits he said "Pull it" but

says he meant something different then the standard definition of "Pull it" but doesn't elaborate what he meant...:eyes::puke:

[SoCalDem]

2. Was he pointing a finger when he said it??

:evilgrin:

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

3. LMAO

:rofl: too true

[BlueEyedSon]

6. And a building fell down? WOW!!!

[FreedomAngel82]

7. Typical

Go figure.

[shance]

15. Kind of like 'fixed' evidence not being 'fixed' right?

n/t

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

20. wow, just like it!

good catch....i love double speak

[Old and In the Way]

38. No elaboration, eh?

He could have said, "I meant pull the firefighters because it was in danger of imminent collapse". That would have clarified the ambiguity of the phrase. But he didn't do that.

So maybe he doesn't want to incriminate himself by lying nor admit that it was demo'd. Because, to admit that it was demo'd would mean that perhaps a pre-wired WTC1 and 2 would also not be so far fetched.

It gets more and more interesting....

[Occulus]

4. There wasn't any way it wasn't planned in advance.

How do I know this? Because the destruction of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, which usually takes several days to set up, after which, the building itself is far too dangerous to actually work in (primer cord, explosives, etc).

I've watched the Discovery channel's broadcasts of professional demolition companies often enough to know a controlled demolition when I see one. If WTC 7 was a controlled demolition- which it was- it was set up for that in advance of 9/11.

Ergo, the whole thing was known in advance; else, why were the demolition explosives there in the first place? Did they just "happen" to have the demolition planned for that morning anyway?

I don't buy that for a moment. I take the collapse of WTC 7 as proof in and of itself that 9/11 was a planned and known attack.

edited to add: I didn't actually read this site, but the photos speak for themselves.

http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html

[Kraklen]

8. Oh, you've watched documentaries on controlled demolitions.

Then you've noticed how everything in the building has to be taken out in order for the explosives to be properly placed, how hundreds of holes have to be drilled in the proper structures for placing the explosives in the proper places, and how thousands of feet of primacord has to be properly measured and placed in the correct spots for proper timing.

You'd think some of the WTC 7 workers would have noticed something suspicious.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

18. There were many sensitive government agencies housed there

an it is possible that it was pre-wired in order to protect records.

[Occulus]

26. Wouldn't that be a crime in and of itself?

And to the previous poster, yes, you would think they would have noticed, wouldn't you?

One question: was the building open and in operation in the days/weeks immediately before 9/11? Was there any sort of "closed for maintainance" in the weeks prior?

I'm sorry, but a controlled demolition is pretty obviously such when it happens. They need to be set up.

I can't imagine any public building being pre-set for demolition "just in case". I've never heard of that happening. It would be simply unacceptable, and would put the building out of code for sure.

Aside from that, how would you protect the workers from the building demolishing around them in the event of a fire or some such? No, the building being preset for demolition by default does NOT make any sense.

[stickdog]

40. I still can't understand why anyone would go to all that trouble to bring

a building down in its footprint, when obviously all you need to accomplish this is to start a couple minor office fires and wait a few hours.

[JackRiddler]

44. Bullshit

Stickdog has a quick and brilliant answer for you, but here's the long exhaustive one:

On the demolition shows, since they're openly destroying a vacated building, it's convenient to empty it out, knock out walls, do whatever they like.

This does not mean that an experienced crew could not figure out how to place the explosives without needing to empty the building in the course of a covert job on a building in use. Don't insult our intelligence - or theirs.

Primacord may be cheaper than radio detonators, but these also exist. Just because they use cabling on normal demolitions, does not mean they could not use remote detonation devices here. Then all they have to do is place each charge with its own detonator and remote-programmable timer.

Now imagine maintenance and security crews with high-level clearance run around a building, saying they're doing vital work and sometimes it will require drilling, etc. Who the fuck is going to question that? Who is going to drop their lunch hour to go pester the maintenance workers with idiotic questions about what they are doing? The receptionist? Face it, a small crew with clearance would have the months they needed to do whatever was necessary.

Basically, you want to make something that's complex but doable sound so incredibly difficult that no one would dare, but in fact the challenge is a moderate one that problem-solvers could fix.

The Towers could have been equipped to pop downwards as a safety measure at any point after the 1993 attack (to prevent them from falling on to other buildings in the case of another attack). This would give the op a legitimate veneer and an ultimate alibi.

Further, 7 was a military building: look at the tenants and the owner of the mortgage (Blackstone Group). It would be easy to imagine them justifying the measure of pre-wiring it to pop for security purposes, in which case they wouldn't even need to keep secret what they were doing.

[rinsd]

23. Well I stayed at a Best Western last night therefore I'M the expert! (nt)

[Occulus]

27. Never said I was an expert, just that I've seen film of dozens of these

and WTC 7 was very obviously a controlled demolition. One, by the way, that makes no sense at all.

[bpilgrim]

32. it could have been set up a long time ago for a 'legit' EMERGENCY (SIGINT)

but there is no denying WTC7 was CD and that raises the legit question if that building was... how many others are there and the admin will never allow that to get out.

peace

[Occulus]

33. but again, setting it up for a CD in advance

would put every worker and member of the public going in and out of that particular building in extreme danger. That, and as the "preset" explosives aged, and sat there, and sat there, would they not become progressively more and more unstable?

Are federal buildings exempt from building codes? Because a building laced with explosives would, to my mind, put it out of code. Unless, of course, there's a provision for federal buildings to be not up to code...

The whole. Thing. STINKS.

edit: not only that, but wouldn't the builders have noticed that they were installing explosives into the building they were constructing?

[stickdog]

41. The Secret Service had several floors in this building and we're actually

wasting time wondering if they could keep a secret?

[iconoclastNYC]

5. Wouldn't be interesting if an insurance investigation....

Revealed an alternate "truth" in regard to the destruction of these buildings?

Reinsurers lost billions on these claims....you'd think there would be some motivation to get to the truth.

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

9. When the Twin Towers' DSM comes out, the media will brand it "old news"

They'll all say the media knew all along that 9/11 was an inside job to wake America from its sense of invulnerability.

[seemslikeadream]

13. As Andrea Mitchell says

Exact quote from an MSNBC interview of Lady Andrea Mitchell, her thoughts on the DSM the morning of Wednesday June 15


You would have had to be brain dead not to know what the president was up to.

[shance]

17. So how does she feel being an accomplice to murdering over 300,000 people

What a pathetic human being.

Is it not so indicative of someone who is obviously BRAINDEAD themselves, for an individual to be so obviously enslaved, addicted, obessed, lusting, frothing at the mouth for power, money, fame and illusionary power that she could literally care less about the hundreds of thousands of murders, mutillations, psychological breakdowns, heartbreak, and bitterness that have resulted from this war.

Who was just condemning the use of the word Nazi for comparisons?

Greed and evil is relative and it all looks the same when you strip away the pomp and circumstance.

I am sickened by such a morally bankrupt person and quote.

[Dancing_Dave]

36. Hear, hear!

And even more brain-dead not to know what Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were up to! :nopity:

[hemp_not_war]

10. WOW

they are forced to go back into denying the WTC7 controlled demolition. That is tough for them I think, since it was so reinforced, how would fire do it? Plus it looks like a demolition

[UdoKier]

11. But the context in which he said "pull it" doesn't jibe with demolition

theories.

He comments on how the fires were out of control, so they decided to pull it. It can only be deduced that he meant pull the people out and let the building go.


If he had been in on some demolition operation, the out-of control fires would not have been a factor, and they wouldn't have waited all day to "pull it".

If it were a controlled demolition, there would have been no need to wait all day.

I'm sorry, but none of the controlled demolition/drone plane theories make any sense whatsoever. Why would anyone who has no compunction about killing thousands in buildings hesitate to kill plane passengers as well? If they were drones, what happened to all the supposedly dead passengers who have families mourning them? Are they being held at Gitmo? Area 51? C'mon people, think a little here.

[BlueEyedSon]

12. Why did fire bring the building down? And in such an orderly fashion?

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

14. If by pull he meant to evacuate

hes contradicting the official story. People were evacuated earlier in the morning, when they were getting all the people out of the buildings in the area.

AND if a full evacuation was truly happening, no one should have died at WTC7....but people did....so his pull it cant really mean that. He didn't even say it meant that, where did you get that from?

[UdoKier]

16. Evacuate meaning fire crews, not tenants.

Who died in the collapse of WTC 7? I thought the building was empty.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

19. Secret Service People

quoting from the article in the OP:

"Was Silverstein simply talking about evacuating the building?

We know for a fact that although the building had been evacuated there were still secret service personel in the building who died when it collapsed. They weren’t told to evacuate."

[spooked911]

25. That is the first time I heard that and it is obviously quite

intriguing. Were they killed for a reason?

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

35. were they killed for a reason?

other then being witnesses to something that morning?

I also, maybe i am wrong, recall seeing in the Thompson Timeline, but i could have read it somewhere on prision planet or something...

[stickdog]

43. So "pull it" and "pull the building" means "evacuate the fire crews" and

"fix the intelligence" doesn't actually mean "fix the intelligence"!

I've sure learned a lot this week!

[Frederik]

22. WTC7

was not hit by a plane.

[Occulus]

29. I *am* thinking

and I'm thinking it smells to high heaven. The thing collapsed from the center, and there were streamers of smoke coming out the windows- NOT smoke from a fire, but the kind you see when primer cord ignotes.

Go take a look at other planned, controlled demolitions and then take a look at how WTC7 fell. It collapsed from its center, into its footprint. Just like every other controlled demolition of buildings of its type.

You can even see one in the intro to NYPD Blue, for God's sake. Or is this a case of something being so obvious few people can see it for what it is?

[stickdog]

42. Here's the entire 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."

According to Silverstein, they made the decision to explosively demolish WTC7 rather than continue to risk firemen's lives fighting WTC7's flames because too many had already died that day.

That's what he said, and it makes perfect sense. If that's not what he meant, then he should clarify his statement and tell us what he did mean.

[mrfrapp]

21. Get out you dictionaries.

This is going to turn into a discussion over the meaning of "pull it", rather like the discussion over the meaning of "fixed" in the DSM. I can't imagine why anyone would interpret the meanings of those words in those contexts in any way other than the obvious ones.

It's laughable really. I marvel at the contortions defenders of the faith twist themselves in order that the official meme be protected. In the end the justificiations become so convoluted that they're more absurd than any "conspiracy theory".

[oblivious]

45. Yes, watch this video at the 4:00 mark and there is no doubt whatsoever.

None. Anyone claiming it means something else has an obvious agenda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x44805

[OneBlueSky]

24. if you look at the video, it's obvious that #7 was a controlled demo . . .

there wasn't sufficient damage to the building to cause it to implode like that, falling right into its own footprint . . . it wasn't hit by a plane, and the only pre-demolition damage was a fire . . . and no steel-framed building has EVER been brought down by a fire . . .

if you accept that this was a controlled demolition (and I do), then you have to accept that the charges to bring the building down were planted before 9/11 . . . for what purpose? . . . and if you accept that, you also have to be open to the very real possibility that charges were also planted in WTC1 and WTC2 before 9/11 . . . again, for what purpose? . . .

all the evidence, including the videos, suggests that both WTC towers were imploded by controlled demolitions . . . and the fact that molton steel was still smoldering in the bases of the towers days after the event suggests that more than burning jet fuel and office partitions were involved . . .

the "official story" of what happened on 9/11 represents the LEAST likely scenario of what could have taken place . . . and the fact that the steel was removed almost immediately and shipped overseas to be melted down suggests a coverup of crucial physical evidence that would have proven, one way or the other, what caused the steel to fail . . .

the 9/11 Commission was a whitwash comparable to the Warren Commission, imo . . . but one day, the truth will become known . . . and that's the day that Bush and his cronies will be headed for long stays in federal penitentiaries . . .

[cthrumatrix]

28. THIS FACT does not interest OUR MEDIA one bit .... disgusting

[Occulus]

31. I speak nothing to the towers, but

WTC7 is suspicious in and of itself. Suspicious enough to cast doubt upon the entire official story.

There wasn't any reason why WTC7 fell. None. It wasn't hit. Maybe it was on fire, but how often do flaming buildings collapse into their own footprint in exactly the way it would happen in a controlled demolition?

Aside from that, although it was a different design, the Murrah building in Okilahoma City was hit point-blank by a bomb and it stayed standing. A simple fire would not have brought down WTC7; it must have been a planned and controlled demolition.

Did anyone ever analyze the wreckage of that building with the question in mind of whether there were chemical residues present which would point to demolition explosives?

Has that question ever even been addressed?

[cthrumatrix]

30. Silverstein says "pull it means FIXED"... soooo pay no attention

[spooked911]

34. well, this lasted about 90 minutes in general discussion...

then they moved it here to the boondocks

[Dancing_Dave]

37. Hopefully, some contributors followed it here!

If we just keep showing that people are really VERY interested in this issue as something of the most pressing general importance, this may not remain the boondocks much longer!

[spooked911]

39. exactly why I posted it in GD-- a few poeple have to wonder where their

posts ended up!