"Pull it" refers to pulling out the contingent of firefighters out of the area. How do we know this? Because Silverstein said that's what he meant. Who else used the term "pull" that day? Let's see: "I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone." FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro I do remember us being pulled off the pile. ...We were down by the pile to search or looking around." Firefighter Kevin Howe "We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. " Deputy Chief Peter Hayden "There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center." Deputy Chief Peter Hayden "You looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down . . it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too." Chris Boyle "They pulled everybody out of there. ...that was probably like four or five o'clock before we stopped." Firefighter Todd Fredrickson "One of the chiefs pulled us all out because they said 7 was going to come down." Firefighter Kevin Quinn "At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything." Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman
<sarcasm> No! No! NO! When Silverstein said "pull it" he meant CD!!! He's such an evil Jew, that he admitted it openly on a national tv program! I know when I order the covert demolition of a building I own, and try to convince everyone it was a fire...I always admit to it on NATIONAL TV!..but I'm really bad at keeping secrets. </sarcasm> [video=youtube;-jPzAakHPpk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk[/video]
No, it was pull it, the operation. Admitting culpability on national TV is not my idea of being smart about it, d'ya think? And therein lies the on going never ending problem. It is a) your opinion and b) without evidence to back it up.
The part about building seven in this video starts at the 1:05:08 time mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8 "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (3/3) What do you pro-official version posters think of what the womans says at the 1:09:25 time mark?
i would like to think it's an informed opinion. correct, i do not have sworn confessions, death bed statements, or anything else of the sort.
She's right. Science isn't science unless it's made available to other reviewers to analyze and critique. Which the 9/11 reports were. So once again you have proven Occam's Razor.
That's not what the video says. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8 "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (3/3) (1:08:45 time mark) How can we go about verifying this?
That worked. I got this. http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101366 At the 1:09:35 time mark of this video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8 "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (3/3) ...this is said. "Architects and Engineers has asked NIST to at least verify the computer model on which they base their theory of the collapse. But also in this case, NIST has refused to make their data public." Is that particular piece of info in the report you linked to? Could you link to it? This is all a little vague. It seems that NIST did release a report. http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...aud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-1.html I think what they're saying in the video is that they refuse to follow up on questions. I'm a little confused as to what's going on.
This is interesting. Start watching at the 9:15 time mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OE3Adu4l0g "Larry Silverstein WTC7 Controlled Demolition 7 Hours after the 911 Attack !" Lary Silverstein refuses to answer a truther's question and the truther is ushered out by security.
That Idiot troofer got off easy.... I prefer the reply given by this great explorer to another Idiot troofer.............. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU
Check this out. It looks like rigging buildings for demolition can be faster and easier then we thought. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M "How they rigged the WTC towers for demolition (Skeptics see this)"
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You have to have a laugh at these conspiracy/troofer pushers.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The whole world is one big fat conspiracy!!! PML@ the conspiracy nutters
not surprising seeing as how the building employed shoddy construction. core columns butted together and held with only ONE bolt. the perimeter columns had a full one third of its joints as butt joints. any engineer will tell you that butt joints are the weakest joints known. these buildings (1 and 2) MIGHT have been designed to absorb the impact of a 707 but they certainly wasn't CONSTRUCTED that way.
That is exactly what she says. If you are going to post a video as "proof" you should at least watch it first to see if it says what you think it says.
All THEORIES on the collapse of WTC 7 are null and void the only one that is "valid" is the NIST THEORY of the collapse. Please note that the word "valid" does not necessarily mean correct. If you go up to a tree and shake it a hundred THEORIES of the nature of the collapse through fire alone fall out of it. They are ALL worthless. Only the NIST THEORY (THE OFFICIAL THEORY) is the one worth bothering with and that one is laughable. Please don't post your THEORY to me. I only have eyes for NIST. and this is how good NIST are http://www.tubechop.com/watch/1947518 Don't you just love em. And this is the OFFICIAL BODY sent to investigate the collapse. Let me just reiterate here. I'm not in the slightest bit interested in YOUR THEORY. OK? If you want to argue then argue what NIST is saying, either that or join us in a call for a new inquiry.
I still can't understand why anyone would care if it was controlled or not, it collapsed period. People died that day and that's the only thing people should concern themselves about, but instead they hammer out conspiracies about who did it really or how it was done, the thing is it doesn't matter anymore... it's done, most people have moved on. Everytime a conspiracy nut tries to get another inquiry they just increase the amount of taxation spent on needless investigations. I wouldn't be surprised if corrupt officials love conspiracy nuts purely for that reason since they can fudge all sorts of accounting over bogus inquiries.
I think you should apologize for calling these people Conspiracy Nuts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPS-cSzUmWk
