Erm, wouldn't an airliner loaded with aviation fuel set off these mythical explosives the moment it struck the buildings?

greg wrote:

warmowski wrote:
Larry Silverstein, the putative owner of WTC 7 said of it "we...made that decision to pull and watched the building collapse" ("pull" is demolition parlance for implosive demolition.)

-r

It seems that he was talking about abandoning a building that was burning out of control like the fire chief said. That doesn't fly with you?

It will fly with me a lot better if you can point me to a video link showing WTC7 burning out of control; in what I've seen, I see few flames visible and no smoke rising from it. I thought they concocted the "flying debris from the towers breached the supports" theory because the raging fire theory would have been dead in the water?

greg wrote:After everyone watched the two towers collapse with hundreds of firemen in them, you don't see it reasonable for people to say, "fuck this empty office building." Would you ask people to go in there?
and-
Does it make sense that firemen would set up a demolition of a building that was burning out of their control? Do you know how involved demolishing a skyscraper is? I know that firemen aren't trained to do it, and those who are don't do it in less than a day -while the building is on fire.

Come on, Greg- who has suggested that WTC7 was prepared for demolition that day? And who suggested that the NYCFD was involved?

The suspicious rapid collapse of a steel skyscraper that wasn't hit by a jetliner or burning out of control or impacted dramatically by towers crashing 100 yards away ( bear in mind, WTC 3, 4,5, and 6 didn't fall ) is the evidence pointing to prior knowledge of the attacks; it's the mystery that is leading people who aren't normally sympathetic to conspiracy theories to stick their toes in and test the water.

greg wrote:Building 7 is appropriately a footnote in the overall catastrophe. It wasn’t important then because no one died in there.

But are you suggesting that the collapse isn't worth investigating now because it was corpse-free?

Look, the collapse of WTC7 is the finger in the dyke. You make the charge of controlled demolition stick there, and in rushes the flood.

greg wrote:Ask a fireman if he was ever trained to raze a skyscraper -
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html

They understand the occasional need to partially knock down burning wooden structures and even some burning brick structures before you can safely send in firefighters, but they don't plan for steel skyscrapers collapsing on top of them in a fire.

Watch the Naudet doc on 9/11- it's full of firefighter interviews. Find a quote from any of the surviving firefighters who say they feared a building collapse as they rushed in; they only times when you hear them mention a possible collapse is when they refer to the explosions that supposedly didn't happen, like the ones in the sub basements or in the freight elevator shaft or behind the lobby or on floors 8 through 10.

greg wrote:

warmowski wrote:What I want to know is why he said this: what Silverstein actually said was not "abandon" but "demolish/implode" ("pull").
-r

greg wrote:Where is the term "pull" ever defined as an implosion?

Where is the term "pull" ever defined as exiting a building? Bye, honey, I'm running late for work so I must pull the house?

greg wrote:I'm looking for sources that predate 2001, and can't find them.

No fucking way... I know we are at odds over this topic, but I swear to you: pull the building has always translated as destroy the building in my brain. It must have got there from hearing controlled demolitions described that way in the media or from reading it.

greg wrote:Could Silversein have just meant pull-out? That would actually be my 1st assumption. Has anyone asked Silverstein what he meant? In a documentary interview, I find it hard to believe that he would slip up in such a massive way. This would imply that he had his building set up for demolition.

Okay, maybe he did mean pull-out- did he also forget to use "of"? He spoke the phrase "pull the building".

Silverstein's slip up or Freudian slip or whatever is interesting, but it would mean little if the building didn't fall so quickly.

Speaking of old bats who might occasionally let their tongue get ahead of their brain at times, there's Donald Rumsfeld. He said " the missile that struck this building", post 9/11, seated in his Pentagon office. And he referred to Flight 93 as "the plane that was shot down" in a speech he made, to some soldiers, I believe. I can provide links to both those quotes if you want them.

greg wrote:I don't know why I'm picking on this particular issue.

Don't hate yourself over it. It's weird, that's why.

Rimbaud III wrote:Erm, wouldn't an airliner loaded with aviation fuel set off these mythical explosives the moment it struck the buildings?

Well, no. And we'll never know for sure what the building's steel looked like at the base of ground zero ever again, because for some goddamn reason, a fucking mayor was able to decide where the debris was to be sorted through, despite the fact that a cokehead oil lobbyist chimpanzee named George Bush was able to walk over the smoldering remains with a megaphone and call the attack an act of war- kind of makes you think it should have been a federal case, no?

Reports were that some steel pulled from Ground Zero was still hot days later. People saw steel melted- not steel that had previously been part of jetliner crashville a quarter mile above, but steel that was identifiably part of the foundational structures of those towers, below street level.

What fire melted that steel? The fires that supposedly blew down the hermetically sealed elevator shafts ( the elevator shafts in the towers were not one continuous shaft from ground to top floor, either- there were staged shafts that covered portions of the buildings ), blowing 100 square feet pieces of marble through windows in the lobby?

That fire was busy. Amazing that so many cops and firefighters were climbing to their deaths in those stairwells towards a fire that had such an incredible effect on floors below them- you might think there had to have been two sources of fire, but don't let me lead you anywhere you don't want to go.

Seismic occurences of near 3.0 on the Richter scale were recorded in seismology labs in upstate NY on that morning. Do you think that much energy was translated to the tectonic plates from airplanes hitting those towers?

If so, those poor people wouldn't have had to jump to their deaths- their frying bodies would have been blown across Staten Island.

clocker bob wrote: Come on, Greg- who has suggested that WTC7 was prepared for demolition that day? And who suggested that the NYCFD was involved?

You, and whoever interpreted the "pull" quote so artistically are suggesting it.
"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."
If pull=demolish
He thought it would be better to demolish the building, the fire fighters made the decision to demolish the building.
Either the firefighters think they can do it, or they are in on the scam with Silverstein, who allegedly set all this up.

greg wrote:

clocker bob wrote: Come on, Greg- who has suggested that WTC7 was prepared for demolition that day? And who suggested that the NYCFD was involved?

You, and whoever interpreted the "pull" quote so artistically are suggesting it.

Never, speaking for myself only. Quote me and post it if you think I ever remotely implied that NYCFD had any role in planted explosives.

From the very beginning of my participation in this thread, I referred to the collapse of WTC7 as one of the most suspicious events of the day. The Silverstein comment certainly didn't attract my attention to it. People have been asking questions about that free fall long before the Nova special.

When I bold faced the words "that day" in my earlier post, it thought that would serve as shorthand for "Of course it wasn't wired to drop on 9/11, it was part of many months of earlier preparation by the people who planned the attacks".

WTC7: If it was wired, it was completely set to go before 9/11. And none of the field level emergency responders had a clue that it would or could be "pulled". Perhaps Guiliani knew, perhaps the fire commissioner was alerted, perhaps high level FEMA knew. If fire personnel were told to evacuate the area, I'm not sure how the warning was worded or who gave it to them.

greg wrote:"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."
If pull=demolish
He thought it would be better to demolish the building, the fire fighters made the decision to demolish the building.
Either the firefighters think they can do it, or they are in on the scam with Silverstein, who allegedly set all this up.

You're quoting entirely from the Nova special here, all from Silverstein?
I'm working from memory and I don't have a tape or a transcript.

It's a weird sentence- what does "we've had such a terrible loss of life" refer to? There wasn't a terrible loss of life inside WTC7.

I forgot that Silverstein said "pull" not once but twice. Damn, that's like a confession. Could he possibly have been told by some official on 9/11 that "We intend to collapse your building" and he was stupid enough to believe that resources were diverted away from the worst terrorist attack in US history a block away and over the course of seven hours, a 47 story building had been wired for demolition?

greg wrote:

clocker bob wrote: Come on, Greg- who has suggested that WTC7 was prepared for demolition that day? And who suggested that the NYCFD was involved?

You, and whoever interpreted the "pull" quote so artistically are suggesting it.

Silverstein said "pull it." Not "pull them." The subject of his statement was the building, not the efforts to save it. I don't think I'm guilty of an artistic interperetation when the term is used again in the same documentary by a construction worker in reference to the demolition of WTC 6.

Was this term in use before 2001 by controlled demolitions pros? That is a fair question. I will call a company and ask.

I have no theory. I make no suggestion. I am only asking for an answer that better explains what I saw and heard.

-r

I have found that the only reference of the word defined as that comes from 9/11 related stories. The building 6 comment from a clean-up worker is the only other time.

When I bold faced the words "that day" in my earlier post, it thought that would serve as shorthand for "Of course it wasn't wired to drop on 9/11, it was part of many months of earlier preparation by the people who planned the attacks".

Understood. You are contending that the building was wired for demolition ahead of time. If we are interpreting Silverstein's quote as support for conspiracy, then the fire department, and Siverstein were apparently aware of that.

Bye, honey, I'm running late for work so I must pull the house?

Good point.

If you haven't read the Popular Mechanics debunking article, and the drunken rebuttals from the various conspiracy sites, you might want to. They can do most of the fighting for us.
I don't have enough time in the day.
That movie reminds me of flakey people.

greg wrote:
If you haven't read the Popular Mechanics debunking article, and the drunken rebuttals from the various conspiracy sites, you might want to. They can do most of the fighting for us.
I don't have enough time in the day.
That movie reminds me of flakey people.

Oh, I've read them, both sides. To paraphrase the sagacious Don Rumsfeld concerning Iraq, "You go to war with the army you have", and flakes do fly towards conspiracy theories. You just hope that the theories can survive their creators.

I will try and come up with references to "pull" in demolition speak and post that over the weekend, as long as the number of posts telling me to fuck off dwindle down to a manageable level.

Even the http://wtc7.net site - which does assert that WTC7 was a controlled demolition - reports that there is no correlation between "pull" and demolish.

searching sites specific to the demolition trade does not support this meaning of 'pull'. The following Google searches of the two best known controlled demolition sites in October of 2003 did not return any results indicating that pulling and demolition are synonymous.

site:controlled-demolition.com pull
site:implosionworld.com pull

Searching Google with the query demolition pull and filtering out sites referring to the Silverstein pull-it remark returns only one result in about 10 pages of results that uses 'pull' to mean demolish:
City staff have contacted the property owner by phone to request that he obtain a demolition permit and pull down and demolish the building

If there is evidence, "Pull" aint it.