September 23, 2005

Silverstein's First Public "Pull It" Response

I just stumbled across the first real public response for Larry Silverstein's "pull it" remark. It comes from the U.S. State Department's Spreading Disinformation, I mean "Identifying Misinformation" website (paid for at taxpayers expense of course) posted on Sept. 16, 2005 that included in a rebuttal to, among others, a section about the WTC 7 from the new 9/11 conspiracy book, 9/11 Revealed...
"The book suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which also collapsed on September 11, was intentionally demolished, citing a comment by the property owner that he had decided to “pull it.” The property owner was referring to pulling a contingent of firefighters out of the building in order to save lives because it appeared unstable."
It posts a statement released by Silverstein Properties spokesperson, Mr. Dara McQuillan, on Sept. 9, 2005 that says the following:
"Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001."
Then the USINFO site goes on to say...
"As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building."
Just what I thought, he gives the "pull out the firefighters" response! "It" referred to "the contingent of firefighters"??? Yeah right! If that was the case, Silverstein would have said "pull them out", not "pull it". No one misspeaks that bad. The word "it" clearly refers to the building (singular), not a "contingent of firefighters" (plural). How condescending that he would refer to a contingent of firefighters as "it".

Also, it's already been reported that the FDNY never sent any firefighter "contingency" inside the WTC 7 and this order was made at 11:30 am...
"With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch.

Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons." - New York Times (11/29/01)
and then FEMA reported that the FDNY never even attempted to fight the fires in the 7...

"In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.

It appears that the sprinklers may not have been effective due to the limited water on site and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.


WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." - FEMA (05/02)

So there is a conflict of facts here with the Silverstein spokesperson saying the Fire Commander called in the "afternoon" to say firefighters were attempting to contain the fires in the building and the news and FEMA reports saying the firefighters never attempted to put of the fires and had already been called back in the late morning and not "later in the day" as the spokesperson claims.


(Note: I wrote this post rather hastily late last night. I am going to rewrite a little better when I have more time.)



4 Comments:

At 11:38 AM, Anonymous said...

Incredible Find !!!

 
At 4:28 PM, Anonymous said...

You guys are like UFO hunters. If you see some little light in the sky, you immediately label it as a UFO. It is so absurd to say "nobody would talk that way". These are New Yorkers (for godsake) we're talking about and by saying "Pull it", he obviously was talking about the rescue operation or mission, not the people. Maybe he meant "pull the plug". Who knows. But you are really pushing the edges by trying to find something incriminating in this statement.

Also, so much has been said about the 2 main towers collapsing due to explosions in the lower levels. All we have to do is watch the video to clearly see that in both incidences, the towers collapsed as a result of the floors immediately above the crash sites caving in on the floors beneath. Not, as so many have declared "just like a controlled demolition". I have seen many different videos of controlled implosions, and they are always set off by explosions at the base of the buildings. And in every case, it is the lower levels which collapse first, then each level above collapses in succession: 1,2,3,4... like that. Both the main towers collapsed first at the levels where they were struck. Is it so hard to see that if you have several hundred thousand tons of weight falling even 10 feet (1 floor level) that the strain will be too much on the floors beneath it, and that they will successively give way? This is exactly what we see in the videos of the north and south towers. They collapse starting with for example 79 (and above), 78, 77, 76... etc. This is the exact opposite of a normal controlled demolition.

So, regardless of all the hype surrounding the "demolition theory", the video does not confirm it. Granted, eyewitnesses testify to seeing the lobby and lower floors gutted. But I choose to believe my own eyes and it is clear that the tower was not imploded from below.

 
At 5:27 PM, Anonymous said...

*For those who can't see how this could happen, I suggest trying the following experiment:

First, take a 25 lb. weight (a barbell plate will do fine) and carefully balance it on the top of your head (you know, like they do with fruit baskets in third world countries). This will be difficult, but if you get it just right, you will be able to walk around with it on your head, supported by your nicely aligned vertibrae. After all, an extra 25 lbs. of mass at rest can certainly be supported by your spinal column.

Now, take that same 25 lb. plate and have a friend climb up a tall ladder, holding the plate approximately 10 ft. directly above your head (while you are still standing, of course). Now have your friend release the weight. As it travels, it gains momentum due to the force of gravity. Notice that the force of this momentum, as the plate reaches your skull, tends to first split open your skull, then as it drives further downward, it successively compresses each vertebra in sequence causing massive damage and structural failure to your spinal column, and eventually the weight comes to rest on your lifeless body curled up in a bloody heap on the floor.

Now imagine this same principle applied to thousands of tons of steel and concrete, office desks and other furniture, glass, flooring, water coolers, computers/office equipment, and people falling only 10 feet on the floor immediately below it, as the structural support of only 1 floor fails due to majorly weakened support from a missile containing 60,000 lbs of jet fuel and ripping into the support structure. Does anyone see how that might cause a 100+ floor building to collapse?

I do apologize for the graphic nature of this example, but apparently some people do need a stiff blow to the head, since they obviously fell asleep in physics class a little too often.

 
At 9:28 AM, Killtown said...

For the previous two anonymous posters, this blog entry is about the WTC 7. Not sure why you guys brought up two buildings that have nothing to with this post.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


free website statistics + screen.colorDepth + '&p=' + escape(screen.width+ 'x'+screen.height) + '&je=' + navigator.javaEnabled();};document.write('');document.write(' ');
free website statistics