posted 01-19-2004 11:11 AM            

Jeremy Baker

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 WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.

This admission appeared in a PBS documentary originally aired in Sept. of 2002 entitled "America Rebuilds". Mr Silverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society of Civil Engineers conducted an extensive and costly investigation into the curious collapse of WTC 7. 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, 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.
[This can be heard in the audio file http://www.infowars.com/audio/PullIt.mp3 Thanks to Sir Dave 'tmo' Soule for transfering this from the video to an MP3 file. "America Rebuilds", PBS Home Video, ISBN 0-7806-4006-3, is available from http://shop.pbs.org/products/AREB901/.]

Mr. Silverstein's comments stand in direct contradiction to the findings of the extensive FEMA report. They even negate Kevin Spacey's narrative in the very documentary in which they appear; "WTC 7 fell after burning for 7 hours." If it had been generally known that the building was "pulled" wouldn't Mr. Spacey have phrased it that way?

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.

[This can be heard in the audio file http://www.infowars.com/audio/PullIt2.mp3 taken from the video.]

This shocking contradiction is yet another curious twist in a disturbing series of events surrounding the "collapse" of WTC 7, and the WTC complex in general.

Among these is the fact that, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever resulted in a collapse. On 9/11 three such anomalies were alleged to have occurred. Those who argue that the towers were vulnerable in their top-heaviness and verticality cannot then explain the collapse due to fire of WTC 7, a broad based, 47-story steel-framed building.

There is also the fact that most of the structures destroyed by falling debris were directly under the twin towers, and none of them caught fire. WTC 7 was not only a full city block away from Tower 1 but WTC 6 stood directly between the two buildings and certainly absorbed most of the damage.

In addition, WTC 7 suffered a strangely thorough and complete collapse, leaving only a leveled lot where it once stood. Although it was a much smaller structure, WTC 6's 8-story carcass stood for months afterwards, even after being gutted by Tower 1.

There's also disturbing correlations between the collapse of WTC 7 and the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. Both buildings were constructed using the same bridge beam system that, in WTC 7's case, allegedly contributed to its demise. But more importantly WTC 7, like the Murrah building, housed high-level government offices including the FBI, CIA and the Secret Service. WTC 7 was also the storage facility for millions of files pertaining to active cases involving international drug dealing, organized crime, terrorism and money laundering.

WTC 6, also known as the Customs House building, housed the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture and Labor and yet another Murrah building tenant, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

WTC 7 was also the location of a kind of a doomsday bunker (a $15 million project of Rudy Giuliani's), a command post from which to operate in case of a total infrastructure breakdown. Building 7 had apparently been bullet proofed and reinforced to withstand hurricane force winds and attacks of all kinds, a fact which makes its alleged fatal vulnerability to falling debris all the more puzzling.

Mr. Silverstein's comments imply that he and the FDNY threw together an expert demolition job in the space of a few short hours on the afternoon of 9/11. This revelation is staggering enough considering its blatant contradiction to what has been, all along, the official cause of the "collapse." But the fact that the building was buried under tons of debris and consumed in flames at the time makes his comments all the more baffling.

posted 01-19-2004 06:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
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.

---

Assuming this quote is accurate (which I will not argue since I haven't seen the program), how does it differ from the publically accepted version? There were not enough firefighters available and those that were were more concerned about trying to rescue their buddies from the collapsed WTC1 and WTC2. So they decided not to engage the WTC7 blaze, the fire burned, and WTC7 eventually collapsed.

Sounds to me as though this pretty much just says the same thing. It's not like he is quoted as saying, "We don't have men to deal with this, so lets plant explosive charges and demolish that building."

posted 01-20-2004 12:18 AM            

The first brick falls from the wall of misinformation.

THAT is the news here.

Admitting that buildings were (sensibly) demolished
to save lives,

and that it happened on 911
Is the first link to the truth that WTC 1 and WTC2 were also demolished to prevent them falling over and spreading death and destruction widely and uncontrollibly over the city.

posted 01-20-2004 09:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
The first brick falls from the wall of misinformation. THAT is the news here. Admitting that buildings were (sensibly) demolished to save lives,

---

posted 01-20-2004 10:50 AM            

It isnt about what was actually said but about what they think was said.

posted 01-20-2004 11:02 AM            

quote:

---

This shocking contradiction is yet another curious twist in a disturbing series of events surrounding the "collapse" of WTC 7, and the WTC complex in general.

---

What the point of the article was is this:

The larger media story differed from the actual one. The actual one concerning the "pulling" of the building was one of demolition, whether it was prewired or wired with explosives that afternoon. The downplaying of the fact of demolition is the fact of the story. GET IT?

It's not a mistake that such inaccurate and misleading information took place. If the word, "demolition" had been used referring to that building in the complex and the public exposed to it in that immediate window following the horrific event, more questions would have been asked, more open contemplation and public debate would have taken place and therefore, the larger media transmitters kept this aspect under wraps.

This is the "contradiction"

the press story
vs
the real story

GET IT?

And it is a kind of brick, another question to be asked -- why? A brick in the wall of disinformation.

bc

posted 01-20-2004 11:25 AM            

It isnt about what was actually said but about what they think was said.

SILVERSTEINS OWN WORDS.................

NOT MECHS

And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

"PULL" MEANS THEY DESTROYED THE BUILDING...DON'T YOU GET IT?

posted 01-20-2004 11:56 AM            

Just FYI, i stand on the side of the conpiracy until you ppl start making up things to convince others.

Just from a reality point of view, was it wise to let firemen stay in a building housing thousands of gallons of fuel oil?

Of course mech you can asume that Pull it means any number of things, for all you know he coulda been talking about pulling his PUD...hahaha

posted 01-20-2004 12:05 PM            

Go ASK a demolition expert what "PULLING" a building means.

EVERYTHING that the controlled media said about building 7 runs CONTRARY to what Mr. Silverstein stated.

ALSO...you mean to tell me that they set up charges "WHILE THE BUILDING WAS BURNING?"

posted 01-20-2004 12:31 PM            

You are quick to put words in my mouth that i didnt say at all? So where does that leave you? seriously wanting?

HMMM....seems it was a recorded conversation between the lease holder and the fire chief, i dont recall there even being a mention of a demolition expert in that conversation, why is it your destiny to obscure the facts and insert your version as the truth?

posted 01-20-2004 12:43 PM            

Okay... lets review this S-L-O-W-L-Y so you don't miss it again.

SILVERSTEINS (owner of the WTC Complex) OWN WORDS.................

NOT MECHS

And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

His statement on PBS televison.

"PULL" MEANS THEY DESTROYED THE BUILDING.

CONTRARY TO WHAT THE POPULAR MEDIA STATED.

I.E. THEY WERE LYING.

posted 01-20-2004 12:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by HatchetML:
But nothings gonna change your mind, and i still want to know if you get kickbacks from pimping Rense's URL.[imagine how many .5c clicks he has gotten just from your posting his

---

I'm sorry - I can't keep quiet regarding this comment.

posted 01-20-2004 12:56 PM            

You are STUNNINGLY and EMBARRASINGLY delusional buddy.

posted 01-20-2004 01:18 PM            

Im delusional?

You put words in articles to better suit your beleif of events...and im delusional...hahahahhaha

You simply cannot answer my question because you cant afford to be made out as someone that would stoop to pimping url's for clicks="money".

Also i think i would have to buy into your Pullit theory to be considered delusional, but we all know that not buying into your version of events leaves everyone not on your side of the fense as irrational and delusional...so tell me mech is that the way it is, its very apparent, you cannot have an open mind in this forum without being flamed as a debunker...Notice mech im not trying to convince anyone in this place that "pull it" means anything but what you want it to mean, if "pullit" is your holy grail to unlocking this big conspiracy, you have just fallen for the oldest trick in the book....go ahead breed us some more disinformation so as to when we are gaven the information about the truth, that way there will be so much information it will take years to plunder through all of it to find the truth, so in essence your assumptions and baseless points make it easier for them to dish out the misinformation, because you are so quick to be judgemental its not hard at all to pull the wool over someones eyes that are so consumed in conspiracies they cannot even see the light of day anymore(no pun intended).

See mech, just cause we dont see eye to eye doesnt mean i assume you to be a crazy conspiracy theorist, that would be completely wrong for me to judge you like that, so if i can see that why is it so hard for the certain ppl in this forum to abide by that when it comes to ppl such as myself with a very very open mind?

Just like Swamp, we exchanged a few emails a few months ago, we sit on different sides of the fence, ive made a few jabs at swamp, he's made a few at me, we still dont see eye to eye but just because we dont agree on things doesnt mean i hold swamp in any less of a light, i hope its not the same on his part but it wouldnt bother me either way!

posted 01-20-2004 01:29 PM            

I'd like to see the towers. I know we were talking about ear buzzing, and I got some, and friends of mine also.

Just one request. Please keep things with the board non-personal, as KNOWTHIS, Boomer, JerseyBlueyz, and Mech are veritable wells of knowledge.

posted 01-20-2004 01:41 PM            

I do not have to explain myself in this situation, the post speak for themselves, i will upload my pics on my webspace and email you the url's, im not sure if i trust leaving them up long though, im pretty sure messing around these places will only bring me bad luck if you get my drift! Also i tried the motion sensor test on a cple of these places, some strange things occured and then something to happen did not.

How many times do we have to point out the do as i say not as i do mentality of the selected few in this forum swamp?

Just so everyone here knows, me and you have slung mud at each other, but at the same time you can sense my respect for you and i can sense your respect of my opinions and open mind, if everyone carried themselves in the same light you carry yourself Swamp, we wouldnt have the fodder that fills this forum!

posted 01-20-2004 02:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by HatchetML:
Left ear buzzing for 4 months now, only my left ear, no ear infections, the only thing i havent checked on in which it could be is high blood pressure...you know a few times everyday it sounds like little tiny bubbles in my left ear going...pop...pop..pop...pop...or more like a click..click...click.... Im completely stumped as to what it could be, other then the high blood pressure.

---

How about your sinuses? Do you hear it at certain times of the day or night? Is there a pattern? Do you "know" it's popping while you're asleep? Is there pain or is it just annoying?

posted 01-20-2004 02:30 PM            

No pain ever

usually notice clicking popping first thing in the mornings or late at night.

Im a sinus nightmare...at night? maybe that would explain why i havent slept a decent night in 4 months, or the sudden wake-ups?

jersey, it was -3.3 c here in the panhandle this morning, 26 F

I know it isnt as cold as it is up north but our year round humidity here is 73% or higher, a slight wind makes the air cut thru anything when it dips below 30 F here.

but even still after all this time im not rushing to judge this as an outside effect on my life, i think jersey might be correct in suggesting it has something to do with my sinuses, i never really get sick only suffering the 2-3 times a year sinus infection.

posted 01-21-2004 10:40 AM            

I woke up last night at 2 am....pop..pop...pop...pop....more like a blip blip blip in my left ear, so yes i guess i can attribute waking in the middle of the night to the weird ear thing, its been going on so long now i dont even notice the slight hearing loss in the left ear, its as if im hearing thru my left ear from behind a paper thin wall, get my drift?

I guess its just something ill have to accept and live with, not many choices for me in that area, i know its not an ear infection, i highly doubt its tinitus, i suppose all i can suggest it could be is my actual hearing loss in that ear, i can take my fingers and rub my right ear lobe, its nice crispy sounding, samething for the other ear lobe is like a muffled dull version of finger rubbing skin.

posted 01-21-2004 07:25 PM            

So I know
that demand that the other side state again
and again
what they have proven many times already or stated many times already is a technique used;
To wear down the other side without having to respond to and disprove their thesis.
It also avoids having to prove your own thesis, by staying constantly on the attack.

That said:

A "fire break" is used in a forest fire or urban fire, to save many trees or buildings, by the deliberate destruction of as few as necessary.

Firebreaks were used in Frisco in 1906 to save the city, by sacrificing many neighborhoods.
(read at reputable sources and verified by eyewitnesses in personal Q&A conversations)

The same principle applies in modern firefighting.

After the WTC terrorist bombing of 1993,
the questions had to be asked:
-What if that bomb had caused the building to fall over as intended?
-What if flaming debris were scattered widely over the surrounding buildings?
-What if a conflagration that defied the best firefighting efforts caused widespread damage and a huge loss of life?"
-Is there a less costly alternative, to limit fire spread and loss of life and property?
-------------------------------------

Who would be best qualified to answer questions about building collapse and alternatives?

Controlled Demolition Inc.
The world's leading contractor in setting explosives to bring down high rise structures with minimum collateral damage.

What would CDI have recommended?

A "fail-safe'
A last resort to sacrifice one building in order to prevent a widespread out of control conflagration.

Several buildings collapsed into their own footprint on 911.
Never happened anywhere before, anywhere, on any continent,
(sans CDI or related demolition assistance)

but Bushies demand we prove a negative.

"Cite absolute proof that no building has ever spontaneously collapsed into it's own footprint from any cause other than controlled demolition" they demand.

Cite several times it has happened!
I respond.

*CDI always made a big deal of the need for precise placement and sequential detonations, when they did their public controlled high rise demolitions.

(I saw two/ and heard the CDI speech* before each)

Thanks for the suppressed news about an admission that the 911 collapses were not (at least not all) explained by the Bush fairy tale: "Coincidence theory"

Silverstein and his partners had control of the WTC complex from june until September.

they also has specific insurance against terrorism.

Which paid off handsomely; to get them all out of debt.

For some reason, this:
Reminds me of the classic tale of the NY landlord torching his own building to get an insurance settlement.

posted 01-21-2004 09:25 PM            

I may write a letter, like it would do any good, to my reps, but like always, they'll send me a form letter back with a stamped signature. What's the point? Well, the online activism might prove fruitful!

Check it out! If you find anything new, please post there! You know I agree with all your demolition points -- it's obvious! For any doubters, I just didn't agree with shatoga I looked up investigations, eye witness accounts, photos, testimonies, physics, and in true academic research style -- came to my own well educated decision. Shatoga was already there!

Greed, coverups, collusions, underworld, pre-wiring, insurance, secret meetings with other building owners...... naivity in such matters of those who ======> scratch other people's backs,push hush money, threaten blackmail, leak information, pre-prep, motivated by greed and graft -- oh yeah, not a conspiracy theory at all, just the way it is! And the rest is there to see!

Wake up!

bc