WTC Demolition Conspiracy

[ted_bloody_maul]

Me too !

fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives.

Presumably everyone is familiar with Larry Silverstein's oft-YouTubed 'pull it' remark, interpreted by conspiracists as referring to controlled demolition and by sceptics as meaning the firefighting operation.
What construction can be placed on that remark now that it seems there was no firefighting operation? Saving lives probably means evacuating the occupants, which wouldn't have taken long and isn't going to be stopped on anybody's order. Silverstein was very vague about what the fire chief actually said to him.
Hmmmm.........

Hmmm indeed.

The construction I would place on it is that an operation by firefighters was 'pulled'. It seems fairly obvious and it requires a fair degree of hair-splitting to confuse the comment.

 

[Bigfoot73]

That's my point- there was no operation by firefighters. They weren't trying to put the fire out, they had run out of water. All the occupants would have been evacuated - what was there to "pull"?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

That's my point- there was no operation by firefighters. They weren't trying to put the fire out, they had run out of water. All the occupants would have been evacuated - what was there to "pull"?

There was an operation. They couldn't fight the fires because there was no water but that doesn't mean that there was no initial attempt to do so or any other kind of operation (firefighters do more than just fight fires you know).

I must say I find the persistence of absolute faith in Silverstein's clumsy mendacity to be one of the most mystifying things about 9/11. Is there really anybody out there who interprets his remarks so fluidly who wasn't convinced of a conspiracy before hearing them? I can't help feel it does more harm to the credibility of the conspiracy theories than it does good.

 

[Bigfoot73]

(firefighters do more than just fight fires you know).

Yes, but they weren't doing much of it in WTC7 on 9.11. A bulge was seen to be developing on the corner, creaking sounds were heard coming from it. I think it can be inferred from this that the firefighters were outside.
So Silverstein was just giving his assent to the cessation of some positive attempt to save the building? There doesn't seem to have been anything of that magnitude going on. Why would the fire chief need to consult him about keeping his crews standing around in the street?
Crucial to this is what the fire chief has said about this, but I don't know if he has ever gone on record with anything. Building 7 wasn't considered by the Commission.
At some risk of becoming a sceptic, perhaps it went like this: the chief rings Silverstein and tells him there's nothing he can do, and Larry resignedly acquiesces in this. Later, in front of the camera, he writes himself a more pro-active role in history and makes out that he was more concerned for the welfare of the fire crews than his bricks and mortar, so he urges the chief to withdraw them.
Or then again perhaps he knew the building was coming down due to controlled demolition and was keen to cover his tracks.

I can appreciate the sceptics' rebuttal to the claim that he was referring to giving an order to demolish, but I think he was being dishonest. Hence my first post of the day - the revelation that there was no firefighting operation in WTC7 when the sceptic interpretation depends on it just thickens the plot.

 

[wembley9]

So Silverstein was just giving his assent to the cessation of some positive attempt to save the building? There doesn't seem to have been anything of that magnitude going on. Why would the fire chief need to consult him about keeping his crews standing around in the street?

This does seem a bit too obvious for words...but there is a risk of death when you leave people in an area like that with fires and buildings collapsing. And if you decide they can do any good, you pull them. That's exactly what I'd expect.

I think it can be inferred from this that the firefighters were outside.

You can infer that some firefighters were outside, but that doesn't mean that none were inside.

 

[Bigfoot73]

You can infer that some firefighters were outside, but that doesn't mean that none were inside.

So if there were any inside why isn't it their observations that are referred to in the Wiki entry? You might expect some account of what they were doing and when they withdrew. There isn't much they could have been doing apart from monitoring the spread of the fires and the developing damage to the fabric of the building, so where is their testimony?

there is a risk of death when you leave people in an area like that with fires and buildings collapsing.

How close would they have been anyway given that the towers had collapsed unexpectedly and they weren't trying to put the fires out ?
There was nothing going on that the cessation of would have required Silverstein's assent.

 

[Twin_Star]

I haven't really got much to add to this debate im afraid, but i saw "102 minutes that changed America" in September 2009 on C4 and there is a few minutes footage where a camera crew is inside WTC7. It's almost totally deserted, with dust and smoke filling the atrium and corridors, alarms going off and generally looking pretty beat up. I do remember there was one other guy on screen, a secret service buildings maintenance dude who was checking certain sections had been totally evacuated before leaving himself.

102MTCA doesnt appear to be on youtube or similar so i guess you'll just have to take my word for it.

What i can help you with, however, is this site:

http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

Which has archived all the TV spots for September 11 & 12 from ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC. I only watched a few minutes of the BBC footage (by 11AM EST the BBC pundits had already fingered OBL, and shown footage of a plane - not hologram or missile - flying into the second tower). If anyone is really interested enough, you can trawl through that lot to find the original NYFD chief talking about "pulling it", you could also maybe find the bit where a BBC reporter comments on the second tower being hit before it was actually - all of which point to some vast conspiracy im sure...

 

[Bigfoot73]

Thanks TwinStar, that's just what we need. Secret service guy? Hmmm. No firefighters though. I will check it out, any clues as to where the fire chief video is greatly appreciated.

 

[Twin_Star]

...any clues as to where the fire chief video is greatly appreciated.

Like i said in my initial post, im not really familiar with the facts of this particular element of 9/11. From what ive just read - briefly - since, it seems a Silverstein guy, with vested interests yadda yadda, tells the fire chief to "pull it" ie WTC7 sometime between 11am (when their were definitely firefighters in WTC7 and 5ish pm (WTC7collapsed 5.20 give or take). there's no suggestion i can find that any of this was caught on TV. I suppose the only thing you could do is look through the rolling news from about 11AM 9/11 to see if there is any mention about the firefighting operation at WTC7. It's laborious, hence my use of the word trawl. i really wouldnt know where to start GL to you tho!

 

[Dr_Baltar]

9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'
By Mike Rudin
BBC, Conspiracy Files

The final mystery of 9/11 will soon be solved, according to US experts investigating the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center...etc...

Perhaps I've missed something here, but why are we discussing a report from nearly 2 years ago as though it's news?

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Hence my first post of the day - the revelation that there was no firefighting operation in WTC7 when the sceptic interpretation depends on it just thickens the plot.

You could try reading what it says at the link Ted posted.

 

[Bigfoot73]

If you mean the Wikipedia article then I have read it. That much should be clear from my subsequent posts.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

If you mean the Wikipedia article then I have read it. That much should be clear from my subsequent posts.

So how do you explain the statements of the firefighter cited at reference number 29?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p ... 110313.PDF

 

[Timble2]

You've obviously not bothered to read anything else since there were fire crews around the building until mid-afternoon before the decision was made to evacuate and the building collapsed around 17:20.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"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."

He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

 

[Bigfoot73]

I can't find anything in that pdf that says when they left WTC7. They went in, and withdrew not long after. Nothing in that testimony contradicts my claim that the firefighting operation was over when Silverstein was claiming it was him that called it off. There's nothing for it, we're going to have to trawl through Twinstar's archive link !

 

[Bigfoot73]

I was referring to the need to find a credible and specific account of what the fire chief said to Silverstein and when. The account you quote is lacking in specific time references.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I can't find anything in that pdf that says when they left WTC7. They went in, and withdrew not long after. Nothing in that testimony contradicts my claim that the firefighting operation was over when Silverstein was claiming it was him that called it off. There's nothing for it, we're going to have to trawl through Twinstar's archive link !

Silverstein never claimed that he called off the operation.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Whether or not Silverstein was calling it off or just giving his assent, the operation was already over. Unless of course the fire chief's account , wherever it is, says otherwise.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Whether or not Silverstein was calling it off or just giving his assent, the operation was already over. Unless of course the fire chief's account , wherever it is, says otherwise.

So, just to be clear, do you think it's possible that Larry Silverstein confused the details of a conversation with the fire chief in his recollection?

Or do you think it's more likely that he let the fire chief make the decision whether or not to pull his team - currently involved in another operation in and around WTC 7 - away from the building before giving the order for it to be destroyed by explosives?

 

[Bigfoot73]

So, just to be clear, do you think it's possible that Larry Silverstein confused the details of a conversation with the fire chief in his recollection?

That is yet another construction that could be applied to his remarks I suppose, but I suspect there is nothing as innocent as memory failings behind them.
I suspect that Silverstein took no part in the decision to withdraw, because he wasn't asked for one.

 

[Jonfairway]

just to back up bigfoot here a little

I do remember the video of Silverstein saying something about pulling the building, something was said, i'm not exactly sure of the wording tho

 

[Mal_Adjusted]

Only one big problem with the WC7 demolition theory:
lack of massive amount of explosives being set-off and resultant shockwaves.
much as it looks like a controlled demolition, the theory simply don't stand up.
much like WTC7.

 

[wembley9]

You can infer that some firefighters were outside, but that doesn't mean that none were inside.

So if there were any inside why isn't it their observations that are referred to in the Wiki entry? You might expect some account of what they were doing and when they withdrew. There isn't much they could have been doing apart from monitoring the spread of the fires and the developing damage to the fabric of the building, so where is their testimony?

You would have to ask whoever wrote the wiki entry.

There is certainly testomony of firefighters inside WTC7 - http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p ... 110313.PDF
- but you would have to comb through it all to find out when the last one left.

How close would they have been anyway given that the towers had collapsed unexpectedly and they weren't trying to put the fires out ?

This is a safety issue. In that situation you can't simply assume that people are safe, pulling them out of the area would be the correct thing to do.

 

[Twin_Star]

This is the "smoking gun" section of the BBC news output for 9/11.

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736

If you read the posts at the bottom of the embedded video, then you will see the organiser of the archive.org tries to lay out a timeline for the events.

But just briefly, here we go:

The first mention of "Salamon" building collapsing is 16.55EDT. That is about 3.30 minutes into the clip. The collapse is mentioned again about 4 minutes later. About 13.30 minutes into the clip (ie about 17.10EDT) Nicholas Witchell confirms the report that the building has collapsed. Thats 10 minutes before it did in real life. Look, i dont know what to make of that, but the ABC archive for the same period is not available - the only time on 9/11 that has happened in fact.

Richard Porter is / was the head of the BBC world news output and he claims it was a simple mistake. he contends it was an unprecedented day and so some reports from "sources" - he doesnt state of what type, proved to be wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... index.html

Thats his blog statement. Where, interestingly, he explains BBC has lost the original transmission. "cock-up", not conspiracy his explanation. I guess the good news is someone could track down his contact details at the BBC and send him the archive.org link via email. 3 years down the line may not ellicit a response, however

My overall view of 9/11 is that something odd happened. Finding Atta's passport *in the rubble* was just so lamentably obvious. More than that, i really wouldn't know.

 

[Bigfoot73]

but you would have to comb through it all to find out when the last one left.

I've already done that, it's the same pdf that Timble linked to, and there is nothing specific in it.

This is a safety issue. In that situation you can't simply assume that people are safe, pulling them out of the area would be the correct thing to do.

I agree, it is a safety issue, but not one requiring consultation of the building's owner. The fire crews were already out so it was just a matter of pulling them back further, risk of collapse would have been assumed but there was no immediate danger apparent.
Twin Star, I am yet to hear an explanation of who it was fed the BBC's NY reporter, Jane Standley, that WTC7 had just collapsed when it was still standing on the skyline behind her.
Mal Content, I think the nanothermite explanation involves lots of widespread small explosions which might not register on seismographs.
Apparently it can even be 'painted' on with a brush. No big charges, no seismic imprint

 

[Timble2]

...I've already done that, it's the same pdf that Timble linked to, and there is nothing specific in it.

Ted_Maul, linked to that I linked to something different.

And BTW, nanothermite (at least in the way the Truthers describe it) belongs with adamantium and kryptonite in the comic books....

 

[Bigfoot73]

Thank you for correcting me Timble.
The editorial boards and readers of the peer reviewed journals that have published the nanothermite report may disagree with you about it's qualities.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

So, just to be clear, do you think it's possible that Larry Silverstein confused the details of a conversation with the fire chief in his recollection?

That is yet another construction that could be applied to his remarks I suppose, but I suspect there is nothing as innocent as memory failings behind them.
I suspect that Silverstein took no part in the decision to withdraw, because he wasn't asked for one.

Well, that construction relies on Silverstein claiming that he took part in the decision. He doesn't - he merely says that he stated his opinion. He doesn't claim that he told the fire chief what to do or that the fire chief made a decision based on his opinion.

That aside, can we now reasonably assume that you don't believe the 'pull it' quote is relevant to any claims concerning a conspiracy to destroy WTC 7?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

just to back up bigfoot here a little

I do remember the video of Silverstein saying something about pulling the building, something was said, i'm not exactly sure of the wording tho

I'd be surprised if this were true. Given how little his 'pull it' comments amounts to I'd expect youtube would be awash with this footage (at present it's only the comments discussed here which seem to be available).

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

This is the "smoking gun" section of the BBC news output for 9/11.

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736

If you read the posts at the bottom of the embedded video, then you will see the organiser of the archive.org tries to lay out a timeline for the events.

But just briefly, here we go:

The first mention of "Salamon" building collapsing is 16.55EDT. That is about 3.30 minutes into the clip. The collapse is mentioned again about 4 minutes later. About 13.30 minutes into the clip (ie about 17.10EDT) Nicholas Witchell confirms the report that the building has collapsed. Thats 10 minutes before it did in real life. Look, i dont know what to make of that, but the ABC archive for the same period is not available - the only time on 9/11 that has happened in fact.

Except it wasn't the first time that the building had been announced as collapsed or collapsing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

Would it be speculative to suggest that this 'announcement' is usually overlooked because it lends credibility to the notion that the BBC simply misreported incomplete information which was already out there? And if it doesn't then why is the BBC report considered worthy of excited dissemination whilst the CNN report is not?