More 911 (Split from Obama Deception)

hkcharlie wrote: »

If you can provide the full interview I'd love to see it again. I saw it once about 3 years back online and now I can't find it anymore.
If you can post here, I'd happily watch it again with an open mind.

*actually I've just watched a few clips of the same exert again and sorry, no, "lets pull it, they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" I'm pretty sure he meant demolish the building, but if you really think the rest of the interview disproves this, I'd still ike to see it.*

Actually the full quote is :

Larry wrote:

"I remember getting a call from the 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 then we watched the building collapse."

From here: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/larrysilverstein%27s%22pullit%22quote

To summarize:
He was talking to a fire department chief.
He was referring to the operation to save the building for the fire they were fighting.
He didn't make the decision to "pull it" it was most likely the fire chief he was talking to.

So why would he give the order to demolish a building to the FDNY?
Why would he refer to a loss of life when there was no one in WTC7 when it did collapse?
And most importantly, why would he admit this on camera for a freely available documentary?

hkcharlie wrote: »

The word "pull" has never been in my vocab before 9/11 to mean anything more than to grab something and bring it closer, a word used in launching clay pigeons, or something I would endeavor to do on a weekend with a pretty girl.
Which of these do you think Larry meant in relation to his building?

PS: keep d) to yourself and don't be so rude as to suggest it!

To grab something and bring it closer:
Perhaps he was talking about the effort to put out the fires. 'Pull it' may have meant to pull the firemen out of the building and to let the fires burn and the building collapse with no people inside

Also, as someone already said, the only time 'pull' is used in controlled demolitions is when a building or part thereof is pulled off its axis by the use of large cables, something which obviously did not happen, as the building fell more or less straight down, and there were no rigs with cables attached to the building which would have been capable of doing so, particularly if the structure hadn't already been severely weakened by the fire and damage from falling debris. Rigs with cables to pull down such a structure would also have been damaged by the collapse of the Twin Towers.

so you are saying that it came down of it's own accord then?

Prolonged exposure to fire, damage from debris of 2 skyscrapers collapsing in the vicinity, flaw in the structural design. And these reasons are not mutually exclusive. It was a combination of all 3.

hkcharlie wrote: »

who is they ?
I think we are agreed "what they (the firemen) saw was similar to a building being demolished with explosives."
And if anyone should know what that looks like, the firemen should.

Why would that be? Firemen don't demolish buildings.
And why is the collapse of WTC7 not like a demolition at all when you look at in anyway closely?

Your post #10 in this thread implies to me that the firemen had been told beforehand and were aware that it was going to be demolished. Do you agree that the video does is not evidence of that?

They said "as if they planned" or "as if they were planted", not "like they planned", the quote which you were taking out of context. You were changing the words that they use and the way they deliver them, and that quite honestly is ridiculous.

Also, why would the NYFD be in on it? You think you could tell all those guys that important part of your big conspiracy and it would never get out? If all of the firefighters involved knew?

hkcharlie wrote: »

So if he meant do you think he would have said as opposed to "pull it"?
Or maybe he just meant "pull the other one"?

All I'm saying is that the term 'pull it' can be interpreted in numerous ways. But focusing on that one term, which is taken out of context, which can possibly be attributed to one form of demoltion even though you claim he meant a different form of demolition, said by a man who has no experience in demolition who did not have the authority to order such a thing, is quite frankly ridiculous.

... yes it fell more or less straight down into it's own footprint, exactly like a controlled demolition.

.... and because of all three of these, it collapsed into it's own footprint, much the same as a controlled demolition, but it wasn't?

Again, some clarity is needed, I said more or less straight down. I was comparing the collapse relative to collapse by giant rigs pulling the building over by using cables. As King Mobs photos show, it didn't exactly collapse into its own footprint, as controlled demolitions are designed to do. We discussed in a previous thread how, iirc, the 2 neighbouring buildings later had to be demolished due to the damage sustained by the collapse of WTC7.

Do you not think that those 3 factors I stated could have caused WTC7s collapse?

So we have some firemen and I assume others that compared aspects of what they heard to an explosion. Just like the head on car crash I witnessed some years back sounded like an explosion. I have no issue with people saying something was like an explosion. People use similes every day.

But the sounds of controlled demolition are quite distinctive, there are none of these sounds recorded in video, audio or indeed in the seismic record. There were no traces of explosives found in the rubble and the report that thermite was supposedly found is very dubious indeed.

Controlled demolition...


Now let's just say we ignore the lack of evidence for explosives and assume they were used. Let's just look at what the practicalities of using these explosives would be.

1. It can take weeks to months to prepare a building for controlled demolition so how do you plant tons of explosives in these large full buildings and run cables for these explosives but not one person sees anything?
2. Even if they could get the people out of the way for a short period of time how are the explosives and cables going to be hidden?
3. How do you get planes flying 490 and 590mph respectively to crash into the exact spot you've planted the explosives in?
4. How does this crash not immediately cut the control cables or set the explosives off?
5. With thermite a spark would set it off so how did the thermite not ignite in the fireball and subsequent fire?

I'm sure there are other practical questions but these are what came off the top of my head.

meglome wrote: »

the report that thermite was supposedly found is very dubious indeed.

It doesn't matter how dubious it is, to be honest.

We're led to believe that this collapse was an explosive-based demolition, with a large part of that argument being based on the similarities to same.

Thermite is not an explosive, and therefore not used in explosive-based demolition. There is no (known) equivalent "thermite-based demolition", meaning there is nothing thermite-based we can compare it to.

So for thermite to even enter the discussion, all parties must first agree that we are not talking about explosive-based demolition, but rather a form of demolition that we've never seen and have nothing to compare to....which then begs the question of how we can argue that it looks like such an event in the first place.

It also means that we must all accept that the various quotes etc. of people hearing things explode, or saying that something was like an explosion are all out of the game...because thermite isn't an explosive.

I posted a link at some stage...waaaaaay back...which had a nifty site showing what collapsed, what was demolished, what was repaired, and so forth.

I'll see if I can dig it up via search.

hkcharlie wrote: »

yes they said it was like an explosion and they saw it "popping out like there were detonators or something", yes they say like, because they are finding it hard to believe much the same way you are.

Sure I've no problem with them comparing an event which they've never seen anything like before to something else. Funnily it reminds me of the this head-on car crash I witnessed which sounded like an explosion, I'd never seen anything like it before. Really sounded like an explosion, pretty amazing actually.

hkcharlie wrote: »

1. you've seen the film, who ran the security of the building and who had opportunity to do what they liked in the building on the weeks leading up.

So George Bush personally ran the security did he? Or perhaps it was a bunch of ordinary blue collar slobs? You don't think it would be extremely odd that the chairman of a corporation was wondering around with at odd hours and no one would notice? But you're so far from the reality of what it takes to place explosives and cable a building for controlled demolition it's laughable.

hkcharlie wrote: »

2.that's really clutching at straws,

He he he. So it's clutching at straws to ask how you hide tons of explosives in a full building never mind how you'd even site them in the first place. All of the WTC buildings had thousands of people in them. The explosives would have to be put next to the support beams, so holes would have to be cut all over the place. Cables would have to be run all over the place. Let's get real.

hkcharlie wrote: »

3.the buildings didn't collapse after the planes hit them, they withstood that impact for a very long time, the building was designed to withstand that and it did. Then something else made it fall down.

Yes the buildings collapsed hours after the planes crashed into them. That's exactly the point. The building collapsed from where the planes hit. So if there was explosives involved why didn't the explosives go off in the crash and subsequent fire? Why weren't the cables cut? And no matter how hot it actually was in the fires it was very hot, at least 600 degrees+ and a fraction of that would set off explosives.

The buildings were designed for damage from a 707 which is considerably smaller than a 767. They were working on the basis this would be an accident so the plane wouldn't be travelling between 490 and 590mph either. Although in fairness if you want to show me a comparison of a similar building being hit by the jet and not collapsing I'll happily watch.

hkcharlie wrote: »

4.do you really need cables in this day and age? Setting the explosives off, see 5, but in reality that's a little bit too Hollywood to think like that.

The buildings were huge the fire-fighters couldn't even reach other properly on their radios. We haven't even got any evidence of explosives to begin with so it's a mute point.

hkcharlie wrote: »

5.I don't really want to talk about thermite, I really wanted to stick to the facts in the videos I presented, what I like to call the "from the horses mouths" videos. But my answer to this would be that the controlled demolition took place on the levels below the plane crash. Quite simple.

Ah okay. What facts? that people said some things were like other things?

So do we find residue of explosives? No. Do we have any way all these tons of explosives could be planted? No. Can we figure out why they wouldn't go off in the actual crashes and fires? No. Do we have any recorded sounds or seismic record of controlled demolition? No. But we have a few people who used some similes to describe what happened. Yes, Quite simple.


Did you watch the video of the controlled demolition I attached? The charges are distinct and clear as day as they go off. Go watch the hundreds of controlled demolition videos on the internet and you'll hear the same thing. But strangely not at the WTC, which is usually why thermite is rolled out.