Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC7 (WTF?)

[Beam Me Up]

Beg your pardon if this has been discussed before.

I found the article from which the quote below was taken on Rense.com. (http://www.rense.com/general47/pulled.htm) At the bottom of the Rense page is a link that doesn't go anywhere. Following up on the "mp3s" mentioned by the person who sent the text to Rense, however, I was able to find this text here:
http://VestigialConscience.com/Pullit.html This page has a link to what I assume was the original but, again, it doesn't go anywhere. I did down load and listen to the first mp3 which, indeed, contains the quote below. I have not seen the PBS video from which it supposedly comes so I can't vouch for that.

The point is the PBS documentary (apparently) has Silverstein shown saying that Building 7 was intentionally demolished by the FDNY--this in contradiction to FEMA's statement giving "fire damage" as the reason for its collapse.

Those of us who have sworn "never to forget" must constantly remember that the truth of what happened on 9/11 is FAR FROM KNOWN and that the stonewalling of any legitimate investigation is, in itself, HIGHLY suspect.

Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC7

by Jeremy Baker Copyright August, 2003 by Darkprints

In a stunning and belated development concerning the attacks of 9/11, Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.

This admission appeared in a PBS documentary originally aired in Sept. of 2002 entitled "Rebuilding America, A Year at Ground Zero". Mr Silverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society of Civil Engineers conducted an extensive and costly investigation into the curious collapse of WTC7. The study specifically concluded that the building had collapsed as a result of the inferno within, sparked, apparently, by debris falling from the crumbling North Tower.

In the documentary Silverstein makes the following statement;

"...I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire...and I said, 'Well, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life...maybe the smartest thing to do is, is 'pull' it...and they made that decision to 'pull'...uh, and we watched the building collapse."

[Dookus]

1. If your quote is complete...

it only says they made the decision to destroy the building - not that they actually did so.

They could well have decided to destroy it, and then it fell on its own.

[Must_B_Free]

2. what would it take

to get someone to add 2 and 2

this isn't even conspiracy anymore, If thy say they razed it for safety concerns, then they razed it for safety concerns...

geez, what's the big deal?


"maybe the smartest thing to do is, is 'pull' it...and they made that decision to 'pull'...uh, and we watched the building ccollapse."

so the coincidence theory is that they made the decision to down the building and then it collapsed on its own?

I gues it's just uncomfortable to realize that the conspiracy theorists were right and all those sceintific and expert naysayers were wrong.

I what what else they were wrong about?

[DS1]

4. You're seeing what you want to see

I see the phrase "pull it" as 'pull the fire fighting operation', stop risking the lives of more firemen for something that's horribly gutted, and next to the destruction of the twin towers, largely irrelevant.

[RH]

77. It is worse than that.

They're ascribing an intention to Silverstein albeit that he said they pulled, i.e. they the fire fighters.

So is the fire department supposed to be involved with a criminal conspiracy?

[Stephanie]

3. My interpretation of this statement would be that he means

pull the firefighters & equipment out - that there's no way to save it. That building was not "razed". Every tv camera in NYC was downtown by that time. That building fell late in the afternoon. How do you imagine they secretly "razed" the building?

[Beam Me Up]

6. Regarding "Pull"

Replying to both 3 and 4:

The context seems quite clear. He didn't say "pull out" he said simply "pull" indicating this has a special significance.

In the article linked the author says "In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context. "

It would be easy enough to ask someone who works for the NYFD, "does PULL mean pull out the fire fighters or does it mean something else, such as 'pull down the building'?"

You can listen to the mp3s for yourself:

http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3
http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt2.mp3

On edit: added links to mp3s

[DS1]

7. oh bullshit

Good thing you're a fireman that's worked in NYC, and know all their mannerisms.

[Must_B_Free]

9. such a hostile response to the presentation of support

indicates to me that I'm not the only one "seeing what I want to see".

Clearly you are sarchastically saying that he doesn't know their lingo.

The significance is that he has presented the evidence to support what is meant in the NYCFD by the term 'pull'.

So, since you're no expert either, can you present any other use of "pull"?

[DS1]

10. You're basing your case on an unknown

Let's assume that 'pull' did mean bring the building down. This would require people running into the place and planting charges, at the same time FDNY was trying to put out the fires. Not a single firefighter has come forward questioning this. I highly doubt FDNY is trained to or equipped for bringing buildings down at their desire. Or, the charges were in place long ago in B7 and WTC 1 and 2, and the entire thing was orchestrated down to the minute detail of leaving a terrorist's passport on scene (not like any other papers were flying that day), and each building was brought down systematically as part of a plan to gut the United States of civil rights and wage war in the middle east.

I'll stick to option three, 'pull' means pull the firemen out, give up hope on the building, let itself burnout or collapse. Occam's razor? Nah, try Occam's backhoe.

[slaveplanet]

79. not necessarily

//This would require people running into the place and planting charges, at the same time FDNY was trying to put out the fires//

http://www.rense.com/general48/chargesplacedinWTC.htm

On day, as the lead consultant engineer was in my lab talking just about "stuff", I asked him, "Sometime in future, in 50 years or so, how are these Twin Towers are going to be taken down as tall as they were going to be and as tight as land is in a crowded city, without causing fast destruction to other buildings?"  

He was standing upright. He outstretched his right arm with his palm down. And said, "Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam" as he lowered his hand down one imaginary floor at a time. All the way down to the floor. I knew that we had to certify these commutators to be able to operate continuously for 50 years without service or repair as our part of the contract. He explained that as the buildings are being built, explosive charges are being incorporated into the structures at key floor joint locations. So, that when the first charges are set-off at the top floors, they will take that floor down to the next. And the charges at that floor will take it down to the next floor. This will continue all the way down. The Twin Towers will come straight down like a stack of pancakes. When the buildings get old and no longer useful or profitable to have and maintain, all it will take is a phone call to take them down.  

So, you see, Jeff, no one had to sneak into the buildings of the WTC in New York and plant charges during a terror drill or a practice fire drill. They were already there...built into the buildings when they were constructed, just waiting for the call to detonate; waiting for the day when the buildings were no longer profitable to keep and maintain for whatever economic reasons of their owners and controllers.  

The jet airliners crashed into each one on the Twin Towers and, thirty minutes later, the phone call was made and the first tower was taken down...and then the second tower was taken down. By the way, the other buildings of the complex were going to be a liability and no longer of use. So a phone call was made and they went down as well.

[Robb]

81. Wow.

I was pretty much convinced I'd already read the most absurd idea in this thread. Proved me wrong. So all the big buildings in major cities already have explosives in them? Well thank goodness no terrorists know about that.... :eyes:

[slaveplanet]

83. I agree

that this may likey be disinfo ...but it does outline the need to run in and place charges my not have been necessary.

[Robb]

85. Why does

"misinfo" have to be "disinfo"? And how does a patently absurd premise help support anything?

If I have an outlandish theory, and support it with another that's even more so, how does that bolster my case for the first?

[OudeVanDagen]

92. your 'stack of pancakes' ....

.... were designed and built in an era where the US was thumbing it's nose at the world ... sticking it where it didn't belong ..... thumping it's chest ... fearless ... proclaiming itself the best ... racing to the moon ... building super highways, massive bridges, incredible stadiums ... airports, sea terminals ... super-blocks of public housing projects, and huge office complexes .... WTC is just one example ... a symbol ... of that era ... of that fearlessness ... of that arrogance. Those towers symbolized greatness ... represented overcoming all odds ... showed everyone .... EVERYONE where the real center of the world was.

You say the WTC construction process included explosives ... quote: "They were already there...built into the buildings when they were constructed, just waiting for the call to detonate; waiting for the day when the buildings were no longer profitable to keep and maintain for whatever economic reasons of their owners and controllers." end quote. If you're right ... then the biggest ... the best ... the symbol of greatness ... fearlessness ... the center of the world ... was built with expectations of failure. You're not right.

[slaveplanet]

21. "Pull"

Is lingo for, blowing the building, in the professional demolition industry

[DS1]

22. Which relates to the professional firefighting business

because they both deal with buildings?

There's no point debating this.

[slaveplanet]

24. Uhm

I beg to differ. did you hear the AJ show today , they pretty well ruled out your theory that it was the firefighters he was refering to.
did you even hear the sound bite and it's context?

[Robb]

54. Horse Hockey.

Show us one occurence of a demo operator using the word "pull" without saying "pull down" in reference to a building.

Maybe it was a skeet reference? :eyes:

We're talking about firemen, you pull firemen. Why is this even a question?!?

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RH]

49. "Pull" is

an expression also used by British Fireman.

I know this because it came up in a TV documentary. A fireman had decided to "pull" because of a sixth sense. Immediately after pulling came a potentially lethal "blow back".

[slaveplanet]

70. how does context

play into it....go listen to the documentary..."maybe the smartest thing to do is pull IT" -direct Silverstien quote.

www.soundwaves2000.com/rense/asx/rense01-20-04.asx

[Bolo Boffin]

72. This is answered in post #57

Please read the thread.

[slaveplanet]

73. have read the thread

listen to last nights replay of rense....you context falls apart...Bigtime

[Bolo Boffin]

74. Actually it doesn't n/t

[RH]

75. Trial by Rense?

I did listen.

The same old sensationalist myths parrotted ad infinitum I can do without.

[slaveplanet]

78. I suppose

that fact I heard AJ alert the public that there was a plan to use jetliners to attack large stuctures in NYC two months before it happened, is also a Myth in your mind...my ears must be playing tricks on me...go check the gcn archives and hear it for yourself...the broadcast was in July of 2001.

[RH]

80. What

has that got to do with Silverstein and the demise of WTC7?

[slaveplanet]

82. your the one

that briought the source of the info into question ...not I

[RH]

91. I bring into question

the style, the repetition, the lack of a rigorous intellectual discipline in favor of hysterical sensationalism.

I hoped to hear something intelligent about the present subject. What did I hear instead? Others posting to these threads have done much better.

I am not at all impressed to be told that something is "clear" when to my mind, upon examination, it is anything but clear.

I am not at all impressed to hear myths repeated that upon examination are clearly wrong. This thread is but one of many examples of time wasted on flimsy nonsense. It is pathetic to hope to progress against the likes of Silverstein with this sort of crap.

In terms of credibility it is going backwards. At the end of 2001 I subscribed in general to most of the conspiracy theories. Then I took the trouble to examine parts in detail and the more I looked the less convinced I was.

[Old and In the Way]

5. Wasn't WTC7 home of the Federal Prosecuters for Wall Street

crime cases? I've often wondered why that aspect of the WTC7 demolition hasn't been illuminated. If this decision was discussed with Silverstein and the FDNY, wouldn't the government prosecutors have moved to get the records secured?

[DeadBroke]

90. No link, but

I recall one or two local NYC area newspaper accounts stating that the tenants of #7 included a division for the District Attorney for the United States District Court Of Southern New York; and that the division was responsible for prosecuting Army contract compliance cases - fraud, EEOC violations, and SEC cases linked to government contracts - local, county, state and federal. Apparently the computer system used in this branch automatically saved records in the main office. Those are duplicated and vaulted daily. According to one newspaper an unidentified worker also added other copies are kept "upstate off 684" which would mean somewhere up in Westchester. The Courts closed after 9/11, but resumed unimpeded a week later. The EEOC, which had it's main office in #7 never missed a beat - they were, as usual monitoring the morning shape at union halls with up to date printouts in hand.

[MrPrax]

8. Maybe the only conspiracy is Insurance

I don't see that it makes any difference whether it was 'razed' or simply beyond saving anyhow.

But given all the lawsuits involving the various tenants, insurance companies, underwriters, NYC, etc. they might be 'flip-flopping' on the 'cause' because there might be even more lawsuits and claims.

Also, would you get more or less settlement money if you deliberately caused the collapse or just let nature take it's course?

[Beam Me Up]

11. Monday kick

For those who like to delve into these murky waters.

[nostamj]

12. think for a minute

after burning for 7+ HOURS, the FDNY (having nothing better to do that day) sent people into the inferno to plant explosive charges?

is there a shred of logic for this theory?

of course not.

[TrogL]

13. Conspiracy theorists hate logic

Anybody who has spent any amount of time listening to fire departments on scanners picks up the lingo fairly quickly.

"Pull" means to remove a resource, either for safety concerns or to move it somewhere else eg. "pull pumper two off the convenience store and use it to hose down the pet store next door".

If you google "building demolition pull" (no quotes) you get "pull down".

[gandalf]

28. Whereaus YOU seem to love generalizations n/t

[Beam Me Up]

14. Ever hear of Scuttling?

Generally speaking, scuttling devices are implated PRIOR TO the need for them.

[nostamj]

15. again, logic please...

these 'scuttling devices' survived 7+ hours in an inferno (plus structural damage due to chunks of a 110 story building crashing into it...?

nope, doesn't come close to baseline logic

[Beam Me Up]

18. Inferno?

Really. Images I've seen do not show an "inferno." There are some apparent fires, mysteriously enough, but not an "inferno".

[nostamj]

20. "some apparent fires, mysteriously enough"

some apparent fires, mysteriously enough

now you're joking, right?

an emergency supply of DEISEL was stored in that building.

the building was seriously damaged when the North Tower came down. (please remember that this is the building that Guliani was nearly trapped in.)

i listened to live radio all day as i made my way from midtown to brooklyn. after the collapses, it was always part of the coverage. i remember hearing live when it finally, 7+ hours later, collapsed.

there was nothing "mysterious" about any of the many fires in adjacent buildings that day.

there are too many important LIHOP/MIHOP questions to be answered.

[Beam Me Up]

23. I completely agree

"there are too many important LIHOP/MIHOP questions to be answered."

Why are there SO MANY important questions to be answered?

Have you listened to the mp3? What do YOU think Mr Silverstein meant when he said "pull" in that context. Since you live in NY, would you mind having a little chat with someone at NYFD? Ask if the word "pull" has any special meaning.

[nostamj]

25. let me ask you this then...

is it your belief that members of the FDNY planted charges in the still-burning WTC7 and demolished it?

if you believe that the developer and the FDNY were involved in the "plot" to bring down the building, are we also to believe that the developer planted charges in advance in the hope that an attack on the WTC would distract from his conspiracy?

neither scenerio makes an iota of common sense.

[slaveplanet]

26. Unless

/neither scenerio makes an iota of common sense./

-the explosive were placed prior to the event and things didn't go as planned...

-you substitue other agencies for the NYFD first...

-your whole intention is to collect insurance...And start a Bunch of endless wars..kill the head of WTC security, and destroy a bunch of inconvenient records..

[Beam Me Up]

33. You didn't answer any of MY questions to YOU

and now you want me to answer your questions to me?

The only reason I posted this thread was to hear what others think about the apparent discrepancy between FEMA on one hand and the quote from Silverstein on the other.

I personally honestly HAVE NO IDEA WHY Mr. Silverstein said what he did, much less why the statement was INCUDED on a PBS documentary.

So far as SCUTTLING devices are concerned, it seems QUITE REASONABLE to me that buildings containing highly SENSITIVE Government documents could be, how shall we say, PRE-DISPOSED to eliminate that documentation if the need arose.

We also know that ARSON is OFTEN used as a means of OBSCURING EVIDENCE at a crime scene.

All that, of course, is extremely hypothetical. "FAR FETCHED," as they say. Yet, the FACT is, even according to FEMA (who I don't trust further than I can spit), the CAUSE of the collapse of Building 7 is unknown. VERY ODD.

Apparently we're not supposed to think about such oddities. Apparently we're not supposed to think much at all. Apparently if you do ask questions, even here on DU, you'll be called "illogical" or "a conspiracy nut." Personally I don't much mind. I'm not saying I know what the truth is, quite the contrary, I don't. Apparently, like you, I have A LOT of unanswered questions. And that FACT, to me, is HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS.

[nostamj]

42. you asked two

why are there unanswered questions?

because the Bush administration is stonewalling the investigation

did I listen to the mp3?

no. had this been said without equivocation there would be no need to suppress the fact after the documentary was aired. nobody put bombs in that building before or after the attacks.

now, will you give a logical answer to either scenerio. you must believe in one or the other. so which is it:

bombs planted prior which survive the collapse and fire
bombs planted after during the fire

i remain completely unconvinced in this theory and find it a distraction to serious 9/11 inquiry.

only CTs who embrace the 'no pentagon plane' embrace fringe issues as extreme as this.

[demodewd]

51. Nobody

Nobody puts bombs in there before or after the attacks? Well you said it. I guess that means its utterly true. Never mind supportive evidence or logic.

[nostamj]

53. pathetic and feeble

"supportive evidence or logic"

you expect me to prove a negative, while you cannot even offer a logical *premise* for your theory...

once again:

a) bombs were planted in WTC7 prior to the attacks and survived 7+ hours of fire and the damage from the collapse of the North Tower

b) bombs were placed in WTC7 after the attacks (and while the building was burning

which is your position and what is your "supportive evidence or logic"?

p.s. i can't prove that mole men from inner space didn't enter the sub-basement to plant the explosives for the FDNY and the developer but, i think that theory is a stretch too.

[slaveplanet]

27. all those missing tapes

and defective radios...reports were wtc7 was controllable,that is before reports were cut....

how do you know it was an inferno, were you there?

[nostamj]

43. actually, i was many blocks east of GZ

but i listened to the live radio reports and later saw the live video coverage.

it was an inferno. 7000 barrels of diesel fuel will do that

[rman]

47. no inferno, just a few fires,

(as shown by the available video footage) that could not possibly bring down any steel frame building (never has before), let alone an extra solidly build one (because of the electrical substation in it) like WTC7.

What logic leads you to conclude there was an inferno?

[DeadBroke]

68. worth repeating

I posted this in the other thread: From the official FDNY reports published in NYC area newspapers, and from unofficial transcripts of FDNY radio transmissions that were compiled from tapes made by fire buffs off their radio scanners no actual firefighting efforts were made at #7.

The sprinkler system, which was fed from water tanks just below the roof, drained the water tanks dry. The tanks could not be normally replenished from ground level water mains as the west water grid was damaged by the earlier collapse of the towers. The FD siamese connections for the sprinklers and standpipes were on the south face of the building and could not be reached due to the debris from the tower collapses. FDNY - Brooklyn based companies - conducted floor to floor searches of #7 for employees, but did not have water available for firefighting until just before the collapse of #7. That water only became available after FDNY deployed 5"LDH (five inched large diameter supply hoses) from the eastern water main grids.

After the sprinklers ran dry in #7 the fires burned and grew in size for several hours. NYC area news outlets have printed and broadcasted excerpts of reports showing that the steel framing members near the fire floors in #7 had spheoidizing - a molecular condition from prolonged exposure to heat, and that the steel below had stretcher strains, or Luders Lines - which appear when steel is subjected to pressures or strains beyond it's yield point.

[theboss]

16. They didn't raze it; they stopped trying to save it

That seems so obvious.

[gandalf]

29. In this case,

if it is so obvious, the FEMA report would indicate so. Does it??? On which page?

[gandalf]

31. Here is the source:

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

[Snivi Yllom]

39. specifically

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

It pretty well defines the cause of the collapse down to a single transfer truss.

[JackieO]

17. Check out this site:

http://wtc7.net/

[Beam Me Up]

19. Precisely

"The cause of the collapse has never been determined. FEMA's Building Performance Study, the only government document that addressed the collapse of Building 7 in any detail, stated:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. ... Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

And now we have Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex saying that Building 7 was "pulled." The discussion of this thread is not did he say it or how could it have happened or whatever else--the question is WHAT DID HE MEAN BY THAT AND HOW CAN WE FIND OUT.

[Snivi Yllom]

37. another

photo clearly shows fires riddling the South facade of WTC7 aftr the WTC1 collapse




On the north face, photographs and videos show that the fires were located on approximately the 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th, and 13th floors. American Express Bank International occupied the 7th and 8th floors. The 7th floor also held the OEM generators and day tank. Photographs of the west face show fire and smoke on the 29th and 30th floors.

It is important to note that floors 5 through 7 contained structural elements that were important to supporting the structure of the overall building. The 5th and 7th floors were diaphragm floors that contained transfer girders and trusses. These floors transferred loads from the upper floors to the structural members and foundation system that was built prior to the WTC 7 office tower. Fire damage in the 5th to 7th floors of the building could have damaged essential structural elements.


I think this last photo indiciates the lcoation of one major transfer beam failure.

[Snivi Yllom]

32. nutbag site

I can explain the collapse quite simply

There were large transfer girders spanninglarge spaces housing electrical equipment. This means columns supporting dozens of floors above come down and are supported by a beam which bridges a void below. If one of the columns supporting the transfer beam fails, not only does the beam fail, but the column above supporting the floor fails. Transfer beams eliminate redundancy and are vulnerable in terms of being the weak link in a structural system.

[Beam Me Up]

36. Be sure to let FEMA know

your explanation as they seem to lack one.

[Snivi Yllom]

40. go read the FEMA report

It's clear, makes sense and gives a technical explanation for the collapse.

[rman]

48. you'll wish you hadn't said that;

FEMA
World Trade Center Building Performance Study
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtcreport.htm

chapter 5 (wtc7)
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf

page 31
5.7 Observations and Findings

"...Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."


That's anything but a technical explanation for the collapse.

[Snivi Yllom]

30. complete BS

The WTC towers measured 210' on each side. The width of the tower is clear in these photos. It's clear from the second photo that the collapsing building is spreading out easily 300',
the distance between WTC1 and WTC7.
It's clear the damage and fire was at the base, where the diesel
tanks caught fire.



Collapse photos showing WTC1 debris impacting WTC7:





photos of wtc7 on fire

[Zero Gravitas]

34. but why?

Apart from putting explosives in WTC 7 before or after the attack not making any snese whatsoever, what would be the point of demolishing WTC 7 with explosives and then claiming that it collapsed because of fire?

Conspiracy theories should at least have a point to them, even if common sense and logic are thrown out the window.

[Must_B_Free]

35. I'm not sure it was a conspiracy theory

I think it was an attemp to win the argument that it was a CD, based on a speculative reference to said CD. Obviously this doesn't support conspiracy either way. I think we have reasonably established that it was demolished in a controlled method by the fire fighters or abandoned to do what it would.

I would think they would want to bring it down so as to control the potential collapse so that it wouldn't damage the surrounding buildings.

Doesn't any know a firefighter to ask if and how they accomplish such things?

[Beam Me Up]

38. Yes, this says it very well.

Is it completely unreasonable to think that the two tallest buildings in the world would be rigged for demolition in case of a tragic emergency? Good lord, what would have happened if the Towers had TOPPLED, begun to fall sideways, into other tall buildings across lower Manhattan? Is it completely unreasonable to believe that such emergency CONTINGENCY PLANS exist? Is it completely unreasonable to consider that if they DID exist then NATURALLY IT WOULD BE KEPT SECRET. This would be all the more true if 'someone' had to make an 'executive decision' regarding this matter.

[Zero Gravitas]

41. LOL

Good one!

Of course its unreasonable to think that buildings housing 10s of thousands of people were rigged with explosives!

:silly: :tinfoilhat:

[nostamj]

44. so NOW you're suggesting

that EVERY tall building in the COUNTRY is pre-rigged for CD? or just the WTC towers (and #7)?

i will take a pound of whatever you're smoking. you're in fully silly mode now. bring on the gremlins!

and yes, it is completely unreasonable.

[theboss]

45. Yes, that is completely unreasonable

People aren't even allowed to smoke in buildings in Manhattan. Yet, there are hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives lying around those buildings? Can you imagine the liability suits if one would go off?

[Solomon]

46. I read somewhere, wish I had saved it, that after the

'93 bombing it occurred to officials to plant demolitions in the buildings in case it was attacked again. Now this DOES make a lot of sense. There were repeated references to a desire on the part of terrorists to destroy the WTC even after the '93 bombing. I think officials felt that it was fortunate that the buildings didn't come down then, and thought about the destruction that would occur if the buildings fell over rather than collapsed straight down.

The trouble with this theory is that people were still in the buildings when they collapsed. On the other hand, there was a lot of bungling that day, one of the worse being not to tell everyone immediately to get out of those towers.

There's a lot of questions about that day and I don't think people should be branded conspiracy nuts just for asking questions.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. "Stunning and belated"

...because it took while to figure out how to misunderstand what Silverstein said.

Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.

Stated plainly? Then why haven't we heard about this until now?

As Silverstein goes on to say, the NYFD made the decision to pull. The fire department doesn't do demolitions. So the LOGICAL conclusion is that this "pull" means to pull the firefighters. This fits perfectly with Silverstein's statement, because he connects "pulling it" to loss of life, not property.

The statement about WTC 6 was in December. News Flash: in English, sometimes words mean different things in different contexts. These two uses of the word "pull" were separated in time and in speaker. It's only the proximity of these quotes in the documentary that have allowed this mistranslation to occur, and even that took over a year after the documentary was aired!

This "shocking" new evidence is nothing of the sort. It certainly isn't new, and it shocks only if you're unaware how thoroughly people can decieve themselves.

[demodewd]

52. Silkverstein's statement

Silverstein's statement as stands is a matter of interpretation until there is clarification from the man himself. To speculate that those who interpret his words differently than you do are "deceiving themselves"is based on this lack of clarification. Thus yours is a point of conjecture,however reasonable,not established fact.

[Bolo Boffin]

55. His clarification is found in the context of his statement.

What is so difficult to understand about what he said? Pulling meant abandoning the building to the fire, which finally caused the collapse. Since Silverstein said that the NYFD made the decision to pull, the normal firefighter meaning to the word is the only reasonable thing to understand by the use of the word.

Pull=get the firemen out

Pull it=stop all efforts at fighting the fire

There is no intellectually honest reason for understanding this statement in any other way.

[demodewd]

56. "pull"

Oh really. I have heard that term "pull" is a reference used in demolitions also. Seems you claim a monopoly on intellectual honesty. News Flash...YOU DON'T . Although you do quite well in the righteous indignation polls.. might even get elected.

[Bolo Boffin]

57. Yes, it is, demodewd.

You are correct. "Pull" is a demolition slang word, too. Now, watch how this works, it's fascinating!

We have two possible meaning of the word "pull" in Silverstein's statement.

1) getting firefighters out of a dangerous building.

2) blowing the building up.

In order to determine which of the two meanings the word "pull" has in Silverstein's statement, we must look at the contextual clues, which is a long-word way of saying: look at the general idea of what Silverstein is talking about.

a)He's talking to firefighters.
b)The firefighters are telling him the fire in the building can't be contained, making the building dangerous.
c)He's concerned about the tragic loss of life on that day already.

These are the contextual clues to let us know which meaning Silverstein intends. Now, what is the only rational choice of meaning for the word "pull", demodewd?

Hint: It ain't 2).

[nostamj]

58. it's really hopeless boloboffin

this is willful ignorance. in the other thread they chastise me for not offering proof that there were no bombs in WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7!

apparently on that side of the looking glass my failure to provide FACTS to prove this negative strengthens their case.

ridiculous?

and neither of them has yet to offer any logic for either:

a) pre-planted bombs surviving 7+ hours of fire and were detonated by FDNY personnel in a plot with the developer and and and...

b) bombs were planted in the burning building (by the FDNY?) and were then detonated by FDNY personnel in a plot with the developer and and and...

and it was just coincidental that they planned to blow the building (with the cooperation of the FDNY) on the SAME DAY that those planes hit, right?

or were they working with al qaida?

[Bolo Boffin]

61. I don't claim to hope.

I'm just a light in the darkness.

Here in the 9/11 Forum, a working hypothesis is that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with it. This latest entry-level essay into 9/11 hokum is tied into believing that the WTC attack is an insurance scam. The "terrorist" attack was just cover for this money-grubbing scheme. That evil Silverstein...didn't think we'd catch up with his little Simon Bar Sinister act, did he...

And since the poor innocent Al-Qaeda members didn't do it, who could have framed them? Even further back in the dark is the implication that Israel did this via a Mossad coverup, with their willing stooges in the US government. Ah, Zionism, when will you let this world be!

Now I don't believe anybody here understands the deeper implications of what they are advocating here. I do understand that convincing some of the hard-core 9/11 humbuggery addicts is hopeless, but I can stand in the gap and keep others out. It's not the posters I hope to persuade, it's the readers.

[nostamj]

63. "It's not the posters I hope to persuade, it's the readers"

valid valid point.

so i too will, from time to time, question the underlying logic of these theories in hope that readers will go: "yeah, WTF, that just doesn't make ANY sense"

[LARED]

59. It really is fascinating to witness

this. It must take an incredible level of faith (or something else) to ignore reality to such an extent.

[nostamj]

60. yup! it's absolutely REPUBLICAN behavior! n/t

[TrogL]

84. You're being ironic/facetious, right?

given the number of times they've called ME that.

[demodewd]

64. Sorry...

Sorry I should have posted earlier that I believe your take on Silverstein in this context is the right one. Besides why would he let the cat out of the bag by using the word as a reference to its' (WTC 7)ultimate destiny...demolition...? Just think you're a bit to quick with the intellectual dishonesty...disinformation.. reprisal when a poster offends your sensibilities. Anyway some of your stated reasons for certain visual phenomema in the WTC context is a bit baffling.The Flight 175 anomaly and the obvious photographed squibs come to mind.

[Bolo Boffin]

62. by the way, congrats to Edwards!

He did really well in Iowa, and I'll be happy to see him get the nomination.

[demodewd]

65. Thanks..

How bout an Edwards-Clark ticket? Wouldn't that tick off the DLC?? You think?

[Bolo Boffin]

66. Hehehe...

Don't you know that Clark is the Hillary/DLC stalking horse candidate? Just kidding...

Actually I just posted to a "where do the candidates need to finish in New Hampshire" thread, and I think your guy is going to hamstring someone there.

Edwards would do better with Clark as Secretary of State. Veep wouldn't give me old Clarkie much to do...

[DeadBroke]

67. old pull equals new pull

Years ago, before firefighters began using portable radios to communicate at structure fires they used two methods to signal the interior crews it was time to get out.

The first method had the exterior manpower pull on the hose. The interior men felt them pull and knew it was the signal to get out.

The second method goes back to when fire engines were steam powered. When an evacuation of fire personnel was required the commanding officer would signal the pump operator with a gesture instructing him to pull the fire engine's steam whistle. Hearing the one long blast signaled the men inside to get out.

"Pull" to firefighters - and to anyone familar with how firefighters speak - has always meant to stop and get out. Now-a-days, with multi-function portable radios a commanding officer will activate a button which sounds an evacuation tone over all radios. This is still called a "Pull."

[demodewd]

86. pull or pull it?

Is it common usage in firefighter lexicon to use the one word "pull" or would one also possibly hear "pull it"?

[DeadBroke]

87. Sure ...

... you could hear "Pull It" and many other 'pull' variations. "Pull your crew" or "Pull Engine 6 off the plug" for example. In another thread I described how I, as a FD Captain had command of a fire at an auto dealership and needed to evac my interior crews due to signs the bow string truss roof would collapse (it did - thank Heaven I had read Dunn's book) and gave the order: "Pull this job." I still have the tape of that multi-million dollar fire. ("Job" is what we call a fire. FDNY years ago had a NYC-PBS TV show called "On The Job"). IMHO since firefighters were involved in the conversation in question it meant evac. Had the conversation been with Ironworkers it would have meant something else.

As previously stated I've been around some controlled demolitions. I saw the "KD" of many buildings for I-95 (Cross Bronx Expressway) in The Bronx, several "KD" in Atlantic City for building of new casinos, and "KD" in Newark, NJ of old 'super-block' high rise public housing, and when I-280 was built. I use the term "KD" because that's what the demolition companies used - KD meant Knock Down.

[nomatrix]

88. Thank you for your explanation

and service. Bless you for still providing insight into this great tragedy. And for those of us who have never walked in your boots.

Do you happen to know any more about this....

(1) Witnesses, in their words "told by police and fire departments that they had received reports of bombs set to go off, evacuate immediately." This is outside of WTC buildings.

(2)FBI had in weeks before September 11, were searching the WTC for explosives.

(3)Fire drill/evacuation drills were held more frequently at WTC that is why so many got out soomthly and so many didn't thinking it was just another drill.


One other question, please. For the benefit of everyone who could be in a highrise or city fires, are you seeing implementation of alternative fire prevention/fighting tools from this? I know the NYFD still hadn't received new radios. IIRC you said water was cut off on
the other WTC fires, have they come up with new sources before they replace the WTC buildings? Thanks

[DeadBroke]

89. Answers, mostly H20

1. Water is always a concern for any firefighter. All 4 major NYC boros; New York (aka Manhattan), The Bronx, Queens and Kings (aka Brooklyn) get water from upstate watersheds and dams that travels through two old water tunnels (a third has been under construction for the past 40 plus years) into potable water main grids that also serve hydrants, low rise sprinklers and standpipes. Downtown Manhattan is serviced by a large water main that runs right down Broadway. It has branches - loops that run off it east and west. The branches do not 'dead end' but instead reconnect to the large main forming many, many loops - called grids. The collapse of the towers damaged the west grid which hindered firefighting operations and also prevented the fire suppression systems in #7 to work properly. In NYC highrises water is pumped up into tanks, is stored and it then flows downward to sinks, toilets, and etc including fire sprinklers. Fire departments can connect hoses to connections outside the building and supplement that water supply, but fire engines have limits and can not usually pump water higher than ten floors. A pump operator trains for this evolution which makes him calculate the amount of pressure he must generate with the fire engine's pump. In NYC the FDNY uses a hose for interior operations that requires 75 PSI - pounds per square inch. (50 psi for the nozzle and 25 psi for the 200 feet of 2.5" hose). Each floor of elevation requires an additional 10 PSI. A fire, for example on the 7th floor would require 7X10=70 psi for the elevation and another 75 for the hose and nozzle for a total of 145 PSI engine pressure.

FDNY has always been concerned about water supply and was the first FD to deploy large diameter hoses. Normal fire hose - supply line hose - is 2.5 or 3 inch in diameter. 2.5" can supply up to 250 GPM - gallons per minute where 3" offers a 500 gpm max. FDNY (my FD too) uses 5" - commonly called LDH - Large Diameter Hose - which offers 1000 gpm. Not every fire engine carries LDH, it's not always needed and costs in excess of $1500.00 per 100 foot length. LDH was incorporated with the FDNY's old "super-pumpers" which were huge trailer mounted pumps that would "draft" water - suck water from the rivers and pump it through the LDH to engines at fires. LDH is actually a portable water main. (FDNY discontinued the 'super-pumpers during the Beame Administration and Gerry Ford's "Drop Dead NY" presidential terms). On 9/11 FDNY had to deploy that LDH to get water west of Broadway. It was no easy task - they had just lost over 300 firefighters and scores of apparatus - but they did it anyway, maybe too late to save #7, but damn it they did it.

1b. The Trade Center had many massive air conditioning units that used Hudson River water for cooling and the system worked fine. The water was of course allowed to cool before it re- entered the River. The 'new' Trade Center will have diesel pumps to "draft" water from the River for supplemental firefighting needs.

2. As for increased fire drills I can affirm that more were held and more were held more seriously after the 93 bombing. I worked there on renovations and improvements before and after 93 and there was a much more and better clearly defined approach to safety and prevention.

3. I did not witness but have heard about bomb sniffing dogs in the Trade Center days before 9/11. I do know, from my own experiences that the Port Authority Police often used the buildings for training, and usually had other agencies join them. I saw hostage training there one weekend involving the Port Authority Police, NYPD, and Nassau County Police Departments. I also saw the FDNY use elevators there for high rise tactics training. I don't doubt they may have used the complex for dog training as well.

4. One reason for the smooth evac on 9/11 was the improvements made after the 93 bombing. In 93 the bomb went off in a parking area under the Vista Hotel. The bomb damaged generators that were suppossed to pressurize the stairwells and control smoke. Backup systems were installed after 93 and worked on 9/11. Survivors of both 93 and 9/11 have commented that visibility in stairwells were better on 9/11 than in 93.

5. As for the sounds that many attribute to bombs I have personally spoken with several survivors and first responders who - in all sincere honesty - believe the bomb-lioke sounds can be attributed to the electrical transformers and steam PRV - Pressure Relief Valves. The Trade Center used more electricity and steam (yes, they were steam heated) each day than some small cities do in a month. The place was full of transformers, they're full of oil and explode when heated. Steam relief valves can also - not always(!) - create a similar sound.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RH]

76. Why don't you be honest

Were firemen pulled from the building?

Yes or No?