"Establishment" based video..The building was evacuated hours before they collapsed it, including "firefighters". Get the truth! Silverstein is a notorious liar!
@darkSolutionX Actually, I've included that correction in the annotations and the side materials. Since you're so willing to accept Nigro's statement as true, why don't you believe him when he says no decision was made by the fire department to demolish the buildings?
I don't trust a lot of things that happened that day and I have read the NIST report. Surely you don'e believe that a steel building with concrete (NIST forgot to include concrete in their analysis) could collapse from fire and into its footprint? Concrete and steel work together to absorb heat.
If you see a building, realize that it is literally a giant steel skeleton reinforced with concrete. Fire hit other buildings worse and no collapse. Yet, everything turn to scrap and dust.
@darkSolutionX None of those buildings were reinforced with concrete. They simply were not. That's why NIST "forgot" to include concrete - there was no concrete there. You've brought up a complete falsehood to distract from my question to you. You're willing to believe Nigro just as far as it allows you to disbelieve Silverstein, but not one single step further. That's not seeking for truth. That's stubbornness in service of believing fantasy.
I don't believe Silverstein cause he lied, that is a red flag right there. I believe Nigro, but that doesn't mean that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. How come the NIST won't release all their information to architects and engineers for 911 truth? Why won't they show their prototype models? If a building did collapse due to fire, shouldn't architects and engineers be able to see ALL of their research?
And, not even a pure steel building has collapsed due to fire.
If you can't show your work in real life then you have no valid claim. A CGI simulation can be deceptive. A prototype is the first working model, which the AE for 911 has asked for. Don't have to be insulting me either. NIST report does not hold up to sound science. Do you realize that New York has some of the strictest building codes?
To make a building fall at free fall you have to remove the base, if you can't see that then you need to
Nah, I am just calling for a new Independent Investigation. Everyone needs to be investigated separately, not together like Cheney and Bush. Not saying I know everything and many of my hunches could be wrong, but it took years for Cheney to disclose his whereabouts on 911.
What most people don't know is that the govt had information that they were going to hit us.. That is just scary to me that they didn't react to this info.
Truthers, its time to grow and accept you were all manipulated by conspiracy videos which lied, were selective with information, took things out of context, didn't give all the facts etc. Its all been debunked and if it was true it would be irrefutable by now either through undeniable evidence or whistle blowers or probably both. I know you invested a lot of emotion into your theory but face it, you were wrong.
@henrim93 They sent in ONE contingent of firefighters, the fires were too severe inside to fight them and the were pulled at whatever time (it doesn't matter), so they wouldn't get trapped by spreading fires. Then later on they predicted it would come down (I already linked you the video where the FDNY firefighter says this, did you miss it?).. You can only really see all the fires on one side (the side that got smacked with debris), but they were internal fires on 20 floors (fact).
Silverstein talks about "pulling it" in coherence to the buildings collapse (since he in the end says "and then we watched the building collapse"). Thats why it's just an excuse to say that they really meant pulling the firefighters out.
Not to mention that the firefighters where pulled out 5 hours before the building collapsed.
@henrim93 They knew it was going to come down from fire so they pulled the crew of firefighters out to prevent "further loss of life" then he said "we watched the buildings collapse", because it was expected to collapse an hour earlier. Would you leave the firefighters in the building if you knew it was coming down? No, that's why they were pulled. If it was an insurance fraud why would he tell the world in an interview what he did and snitch himself out? Lol Come on have you lost your mind?
@theBartone9119 Well if they were going to try to save the building(number 7), then they would have had to send and keep firefighters into the building in order to "contain the fires" so instead of loosing more firefightres wich probably would happen if they tried to save building number 7 they instead chose to give up on the building, and then they could have made the descision to pull it(the building).
@henrim93 "Well if they were going to try to save the building(number 7), then they would have had to send and keep firefighters" But they weren't trying to save Building 7 obviously, they were trying to save the firefigthers lives which is more important, which is why the one contingent was pulled because they knew the fires would take down the building, it's simple man.
"How can that be if all the firefighters where evacueted from the area at 11:23" to save lives, are you dense?
@theBartone9119 and once again, if they expectet it to come down "an hour earlier" and therefore they pulled the firefighters out of the building as you say. How can that be if all the firefighters where evacueted from the area at 11:23 that day, over 5 hours before the building went down?
@henrim93 Here is a firefighter explaining how the building behind him is going to collapse soon (Building 7):
/watch?v=WnYBX6QT0R4
Here is a reporter who got the message from the FDNY officials that WTC 7 was next to come down:
/watch?v=O-WZpXiEKAo
Basically it was no "mystery" to anyone that day that the building would come down. Many columns from the North Tower weighing 6 tons each smacked into Building 7 and ignited a fire that grew and was unfought for 7 hours, pretty fucking obvious dude.
@henrim93 Debris (multiple steel columns from the North Tower weighing 6 tons each) smashing into a structure (Building 7) at free fall speed spreading fires across 20 floors for 7 hours + large jets carrying 98,800 litres of exploding fuel, with the equivalent explosive power of 100 tons of TNT smashing into Towers at 500 mph, with fires spreading across multiple floors weakening steel trying to support all the weight above it crashing down a single floor below = No need for controlled demo.
@theBartone9119 well the windson building in madrid a 32 storey building burned for 24 hours completely eradicating the upper 10 floors(wich eventually fell down) but the rest of the building still stod.
That video shows statements from fire fighers saying that at 2pm, they all knew it was coming down. So they probably sensed the danger at 11:23, but all knew it was going to come down eventually at 2pm. Here is a firefighter explaining how the building behind him is going to collapse soon (Building 7):
The idiocy of truthers is amazing. They actually want people to believe that Silverstein first committed a multi-billion dollar act of insurance fraud, then admitted to doing so on national TV, and then somehow, 2 years later in 2004, not one of the WTC complex's 24 insurance holders ever raised the issue of possible fraud before paying out a total of about $4.5 Billion in insurance claims. Logic has never seemed to permeate the so called "truth movement".
how can you ''pull'' a building at a moments notice dont these things need to be set up first ,unless it was prewired of course lol you americans live a lie with such glaringly obvious evidence thats in your face
The key is the Word "It" and not "Them". Case closed. He's going to prison sooner or later because the American people are awakening. And should he die before that day he's still going to be held to account by Allah for all the death and mayhem he's caused. As I said before the sear of hells flame is eternal and when he's feel it and the gravity of eternity and Gods existence, it will make a black hole seem insignificant. La Ila Ha Illa Allah, wa Ashadu Muhammed Rasul Allah.
@ChameleonMD123 "Pull it" as in pull the firefighting crew. Simple. Case closed.
He's not going to prison because there's no evidence of him doing anything wrong. For the second time, have you got anything besides your misinterpretation of two words? Pull it? Is that it? Please tell me you'be got something better than that against him.
@thx1138aa The truth is I don't need any more against him. Just like I wouldn't need to prove every possible theory wrong to know Casey Anthony is responsible for her daughter's death. Im not a juror. I'm not God. It's not on me to prove or to worry about. But i'm going to speak the truth at every opportunity. Simple as that.
@ChameleonMD123 You're not speaking the truth. You're speaking lies based on your deliberate misinterpretation of two words. You keep blinders on your eyes because you're a gullible, uneducated conspiracy kook.
You claim the key is the word "it" and now you know that refers to the firefighting contingent yet you are so consumed by your conspiracy religion that you can't bear to think rationally. Go off to your conspiracy cult meeting.
If our own government pulled the WTC down it would have made about as much sense for them to have shot themselves and their family, and plucked their own eyes out with a spoon while they were at it. I have a hard time believing that the USA gov't would have done something so utterly ass-backwards, senseless and politically inefficient.
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) say that the damage from Tower 1's collapse played NO role in the collapse of Building 7, and that it was all due to fires. So why wouldn't a hotter, longer fire like the one in Madrid cause it to fall straight downward as well?
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
@ModernPlague geez!! well they are wrong! what started the fires? Debris from wtc1!!! the structural damage it caused did not, but the fires they stared did! 7 is a totally different design than madrid(no damage), WTC 1 and 2. How difficult is to understand? Fires brought down 7 move on!! All buildings fall straight down thats gravity and physics!!! what was 7 going to do as it collapsed? a back flip? fall over sideways like in cartoons?
@ModernPlague The fire commander of the NYFD ordered the pull of 7 not Silverstein. Why would he do that if no personnel or people were in or close to 7? He is not stupid. 7 had many fires on many floors, some even run the entire length of the floor on several floors. The reports, videos, pics where fires can clearly be seen from many parts of 7 are all over you tube and other sites as well. Amazing how truthers never see any fires! or just 2!
@ModernPlague No one said steel melted. Fires only have to be hot enough to compromise steel. Fires were not minor! some fires covered the almost the entire floors on several levels of building 7. every face of 7 had fires coming out of the windows. Fire fighters and people were either pulled out or away from 7. You saying the NYFD is stupid? 7 was a two stage collapse, east penthouse collapsed first which caused the main building to collapse about 8 seconds later around 18 sec total.
@ModernPlague Steel and concrete overpasses collapse from tanker truck fires. the steel did not melt it was warped and bent of of shape from heat until it collapses. And they are not supporting half an office building weighing 1000+ tons.
@ModernPlague Madrid building was not hit by a 767/757 or had any structural damage. You forget the condition the buildings are in after the structural damage. the fire just aided the collapse, they may have collapsed even without the fire who knows. WTC 7 fires minor compared with madrid fire? well duh! But any fire that engulfs almost the entire floor on several stories plus dozens of other fires in any building is not "minor".
Nice try, with clever word smithing.. But Larry said "pull it, and they made that decision to pull" in the same sentence as "we watched the building collapse". "It" is a building. "Them" would be for people. There were no firefighters in the building at that time, so there were no "them" to speak of. Only an empty buildilng, and "it".
@TruthMakesPeace You forget to mention that Silverstein said "Maybe" the best thing to do is to pull it. Maybe? Sounds like he's not sure. But if he was behind a big bad demolition conspiracy, why would he express doubt.
He also did not say "we" made the decision to pull or "I" made the decision. He said "they" made that decision. Who is the "they" that decided to pull?
-Hahaaaaaa! Slick-media try by deviously murderous jewZionists to frantically cover-up obvious 'smoking-gun confession' unwittingly committed by one of the key Mossad-agents "Lucky Larry" (-fastest $4.5-Billion jewArson-profit in Real-estate history!). What really happened was that L.Silverstein was caught on video-cam in his make-shift NY-office by a mobile NPR/TV-crew that happened-in as this criminal was in the midst of making his "Pull-it" -command to his anxious Mossad/Demo-agents...!!!
@AryanKnight I sexed your jew mom last night!! Now run along to bead Hymie you want to get lots of sleep for your Bar Mitzvah tomoro!! Your moma told me all you do is "PULL-IT" to pictures of lucky Larry ....wow what a fag!!!!
@buck65100 --Here folks, is the result of a Jew-father impregnating his daughter, --muddled-up dna wherein the brain-neurons of the offspring are tragically diminished...!!!
A chilling possibility: Those tall buildings in a densely populated area could be rigged - by design- with stealt self destruct features that can be triggered at will. "We've had such terrible lost of life..." suggests that pulling it would spare more life by preventing such a tall structure to fall sideways. Understandably, such feature would'nt be publicized. Now, what about planes, after 9/11?
THIS NARRATOR IS GIVING TONS OF COMMENTARY WITH NO PROOF OF WHERE ITS COMMING FROM .
THEY DIDNT USE CABLES ON WTC 7 ....IT WAS TOO TALL.
AND NONE OF WHAT L.S. SAYS, MATCHES ANYTHING THE FIREMEN SAY.
HE ALSO SAID HE HAD A DOC. APPT., BUT HIS BEST FRIEND SAID HE GOT A WARNING CALL NOT TO GO, AND HE CALLED HIS DAUGHTER TO WARN HER TOO.. LIKE THE OTHER 30,000 PEOPLE THAT WERNT THERE AT 9AM....THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID THEY WERE WARNED..AND THE EARLY BBC BROADCAST IS JUST TOO MUCH !
Google (firefighters "WTC building 7" "decision fairly early on" +"water supply" OR +"city water main")
The fires were out of control because city water main for it had broken & the sprinkler system & fire hose stations on each floor had no water. Without water, the firefighters would have to supply themselves up to 47 stories. Firefighters early on had decided NOT to put effort into fighting the fire in that building. Building had been evacuated early. No firefighters to "pull" from it.
@oldspammer Plus firefighters are not an 'it', and 'pull it' doesn't have to be a professional demolition term or whatever's argued. All it means is to bring something down, like how we say a video was 'pulled' from youtube. He meant that they brought the building down for safety reasons, but since that's impossible it's admission of guilt by default. Lucky for him most people are sheep and look at the rich people and politicians/government as 'daddy' and never suspect them of everything
@dubified89 Pull "it" as in pull the firefighting crew. He even clarified that he was talking about the firefighters. THe firefighters used the word "pull" that day too in reference to pulling back from the buidlings on fire. Why is it so hard for truthers to get this through their skulls? Is there anything else that indicates Silverstein was part of a demolition plot? Anything at all?
@buddyfreakinhoIIy Imagine that. Are you an idiot or a shill? He said maybe the best idea was to pull it..........and then they made a decision to pull it. Try again bucko, the lies falling apart. And all the bullshit propaganda you treasonous nitwits put forward isn't going to save you. No army on earth can stop an idea who's time has come. Truth will always win in the end. Judgement Day is coming and the sear of Hell's flame is eternal.
@ChameleonMD123 If he was involving in carrying out the whole thing, then why would he say "maybe?"
Got any evidence of Silverstein's supposed guilt besides your misinterpretation of 2 words? Anything at all? Or do you just like to smear innocent people?
Looks like you're the one that's the bullshitting, treasonous nitwit.
Finally a video that gets it right. "Pull" is not an industry term for bringing down a building with explosives. That's why the conspiracy folks can't find an example of it being used that way.
@13falls123 Hey the maker of this video is lying so I think it should be pulled from the site. Oh look I just used it in the exact context that Silverstein used it in. He is NOT a demolition worker he's a fucking business tycoon so the fact that it's not a proper demolition term is irrelevant.
As for this video...whoever this guy is rest assured he is an idiot....man you're weaving a web of pure ridiculum. I listened with wide open hears and when you had finished I had it wrapped all over me like cotton candy. Nice try asshole.
And the attempted whitewash continues. So sad that so many people can't see what's been smacking them right in their sleeping faces for over nine years.
ok, so were cables used in building 7? No. "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse" ie something caused the building to collapse... it didn't happen spontaneously like the government says. Plus, the word "pull" is regularly used in the demolition industry, and there is plenty of evidence for it. WTC 7 was evacuated very early on, it was only around 4.00pm that spectators were removed from the secene.
Side link to the right side of your screen, Click on "WeAreCHANGE confronts Larry Silverstein.
When questioned about the fire chief he claims to have spoken to (person asking the question mentioned how *that* firefighter said he never had 'that' conversation w/silverstein never happened. Silverstein gets very agitated from this and in his wormy way answers back with, "...uhm let's go on to the next question." please check it out.
@Echdrum Yeah he slipped up in that interrogation, for us regular folk that would mean a likely prosecution. You know like how the cops separate people and interview them each alone and try to find contradictions in their story, when they're accused of a crime? But when it's someone with wealth and power it doesn't matter as much because they tell the cops what to do, not vice versa. And many if not most people will fall in line and defend these people of anything, probably because they want
@dubified89 what these guys have. They want the same primitive power and prestige. They don't care about things like virtue and honesty, what use are those things? I honestly think that's what it comes down. So 9/11 is just a symptom of a larger sickness among people in society if you think about it. Maybe the reason so many people deny 'conspiracy theories' is because looking at their masters critically would also mean having to look realistically at themselves, and people don't want to do that
@dubified89 Sure,rich people are treated differently. But that doesn't automatically mean he's guilty. What's the evidence against him? Got anything better than a misinterpretation of 2 words? "Pull it." Is that all you've got?
GRADE A DISINFO! from: thefreedictionaryDOTcom/pull+down pull down:
1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
from: diclib.com Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner's English Dictionary 4th edition: To pull down a building or statue means to deliberately destroy it.
from: websters-online-dictionaryDOTorg pull: 4: [Verb] To demolish; to subvert; to destroy. In political affairs, as well as mechanical. from princetonDOTedu# tear down so as to make flat with the ground.
GRADE A DISINFO! from: thefreedictionaryDOTcom/pull+down pull down:
1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
from: diclib.com Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner's English Dictionary 4th edition: To pull down a building or statue means to deliberately destroy it.
from: websters-online-dictionaryDOTorg pull: 4: [Verb] To demolish; to subvert; to destroy. In political affairs, as well as mechanical. from princetonDOTedu# tear down so as to make flat with the ground.
Well let's not forget, all the explosions that were heard for all those who were there. I don't think any cables can cause those extremely loud explosions.
is beyond me! They had advanced knowledge of the attacks and were more than happy to watch the horror from the safety of his executive suite somewhere in the vicinity im sure, where they sat and drank the blood of the "True hardworking victims!" People jumped for their lives that day from 100s of floors up so he can sit on a golden toilet seat n wipe his ass with his lizard tongue! I feel so bad for those people until this very day, i was 11 at the time and did not understand. Today i do! US(Gay
Right... So they "Pulled" the building with cables.... Ok you try showing me how you pull a gigantic building down with cables any time in this century and ill be happy. if anything the whole fuckin thing would of collapsed unevenly. Not in the way it did! Which was controlled with explosives floor by floor!!! Why are some people so dumb and are still in denial about perfect America, Larry silverstein is a slimy money grabbing zionist. How his whole family escaped without a scrath that day
@MitchyTheDon In demo terms, "pull" means using cables. Since obviously no cables were used, then Silverstein was not using a demo term but one of the other definitions of "pull." There ARE other definitions of the word you know.
BTW, what's the evidence against Silverstein? Got anything better than the misinterpretation of one word? All insurance payouts are going to rebuilding.
Did you know that building 6 was in between WTC towers 1 and 7... IN BETWEEN... ok, now that you are aware of that. Perhaps you would care to explain to me why building 5 didn't collapse? Major fires.. check, structural damage... check, didn't collapse... check! My thought on the matter are that buildings 4, 5, and 6 didn't need to be demolished on 9/11 for the war on terror to push forward without a declaration. You know as well as I do which agencies benefited the most from 9/11.
@baihbalm Building 6 was eight stories high, a much smaller building. It had a radically different structure. And there actually was a partial collapse of the building's structure due to debris hitting it.
@boloboffin but it didn't collapse like a domo'd building, did it? why was that? the fires weren't strong enough? The building was right next to WTC 1, if anything, I should have collapsed before building 7. Oh wait... it housed the US customs agency. A completely incompetent agency even to this day... look at our borders! Guess who's job it was to screen the terrorists who came across from Saudi Arabia... a country we should be at war with... get a clue man.
@baihbalm Neither did 7. Demo'd buildings don't start with one column the way 7's collapse did. Why should your inflamed sense of personal incredulity inform my understanding in any way?
@boloboffin explain what you mean by one column? And also, try to explain why building 6 didn't collapse. I know it was smaller, that's obvious. But the structural damage to the building was far worse then that of building 7, and yet it stood... was building 7 hit by a plane I didn't see? Not to mention building 4 and 5, which were both later demolished.
@baihbalm Column 79. There was no equivalent structure in Buildings 4, 5, and 6 to Column 79. NIST's modeling determined that only two floors of 79 had to be removed from an otherwise sound Building 7 for the entire building to collapse. With NO fire. WTC 7 had a design flaw, and the fire exploited it. 4, 5, and 6 didn't have such a flaw, and the structures stood.
@boloboffin The fire didn't do shit, there have been far worse fires to other buildings of similar build (and much older). Yet building 7 is the first and probably last steel frame building to collapse. Well there's always firsts I suppose, there just happen to be a bunch of firsts that day... I'm going to look up NIST and see what I can find out. Thanks for info, you may very well be right, anything is possible... I just think it was too convenient as to just who benefited from 9/11 tragedy
@baihbalm Definitely look up the NIST reports. All the fires had to do in 7 was thermally expand floor beams around Column 79 and thus cause a local collapse, robbing 79 of critical support. Then the whole building would go. PS: Damage from debris is only important as to how building fell (the path of progression), not why.
@boloboffin You know, I was looking through the report... and it will take many hours to see if you didn't just make up what you said, so don't get too comfortable yet. The experience I've had with federal agencies has been mostly negative in the sense that they use an unnecessary about of resources to produce mediocre results/products. I'm speaking from my time working with Hanford employees a few years back on a project that was halted due to incompetence... but that's beside the point.
@baihbalm The government is certainly to blame for producing and burying all the radioactive crap at Hanford, but any problems in recent decades would be at least partly the fault of the contractors that have been running the place.
I don't have a problem with people blaming the government for various things, but I wonder why they think private corporations are any better.
@PoetryHound The difference is accountability. Though there are exceptions for private companies in bed with the government... like Lockheed Martin, big banks (bail outs), large military contractors. So, I'm not sure what you mean by 'recent decades' I've lived in the Hanford area for the past 'recent decades', seems like more of the same bullshit as usual to me and just about everyone else here. Even those who work for the government think they are incompetent. Lookup vitrification plant.
@baihbalm Both the government & its contractors (Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse, etc.) lack accountability. I happen to have worked with whistleblowers from Hanford. I heard plenty of horror stories about the contractors - radioactive releases, cover-ups of the releases, incorrect or malfunctioning air filters, false reporting, radioactive tumbleweeds! I'm not letting the government off the hook, but the contractors were down there in the muck just as much if not more.
2) I haven't heard about problems at the vitrification plant, but I know about the problems at the N reactor before it closed, and of course the underground storage tanks. We had maps of tritium plumes going into the Colombia River. Complete disregard for safety, the environment, or any kind of accountability.
@PoetryHound No doubt, I agree with what you say. But an important factor you didn't mention is that those very companies you prosecute are the very ones in bed with congress (lobbying). So yeah, those companies are just as corrupt, or more so. The issue can be resolved quite easily by shrinking government (substantially) so that that lobbying will not be such a strong determining factor in rewarding major contracts. Honestly, it's either lobby, or get stuck with a crap contract. It's wrong.
@seonf Actually reading the NIST reports instead of relying on sharks and snake oil salesmen for what they say would truly assist you in this situation.
@boloboffin So It was misunderstanding, i knew the government wouldnt lie to me, you made everything so much more clearer now... I guees Silverdick got all that insurance money from 911 by accident.
@seonf yes fire can melt steel how do you think they make it? or melt it down to recycle it? fire! but no steel melted in 1, 2, or 7. Can we move on now?
that was a lot of explaining to do... you forgot to mention the buildings that Silverstein didn't own did not collapse... but that's just coincidence right? This guy lives off bullshit, and now will donate some money to charity to erase these... inconveniences.
@baihbalm Silverstein held the lease on 1, 2, 3, and 7. They collapsed. Silverstein held the lease on 4, 5, and 6. They didn't. Silverstein didn't hold the lease on St. Nicholas. It collapsed. Silverstein didn't hold the lease on lots of other buildings. They didn't. You really don't have a point here.
Let's see if Silverstein can prove he was at the dermatologist and when the appt. was booked. Let's see if Silverstein can tell us who he spoke to on the phone that day? Let him explain why he said "maybe the best thing to do is pull-it" "and they made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse". How about his kids being held up in traffic that day too? All these questions need firm answers. Phone records could answer a few of these questions in court. Why is he immune?
@MiaRyanne Silverstein is "immune" as you put it because you have NO PROBABLE CAUSE to demand that documentation from him. NONE. He doesn't have to explain jack to you because all you have on him is your own prejudice.
@boloboffin We have enough that he should be required to answer some questions. WTC 7 was owned by him for much longer than the other buildings, it came down under mysterious circumstances. He received a large sum of insurance money. He happened to not be in the building that morning...and only that morning (since he took the 99 year lease). His kids were to be at a meeting in the WTC towers that morning too. Independent of each other both his kids ran late that day and were "lucky" too.
@MiaRyanne You have NOTHING but your own personal credulity. Finding it incredible that people were running late in Manhattan doesn't speak well for your sense of credulity.
@boloboffin Silverstein make a "pull-it" remark twice and (without pause) then we watched the building collapse". Silverstein hired an ex CIA to head his security for the WTC towers. This CIA agent just happened to be the one who attempted to bring forth information that an attack was in the works. He was hired on 9/10 died on 9/11 in WTC. Silverstein's top aid also managed to escape death as he abrubtly cut his meeting short that day and exited the building. All just coincidence?
@MiaRyanne Silverstein's second "pull" comment was "they made the decision to pull." In other words, the fire department. And firefighters don't do controlled demolition. They do pull their people away from dangerous buildings.
@boloboffin "in other words" is probably how Silverstein should have said it then...but he chose those words...and said them twice...not an accident. If he said what you are trying to "make fit" then I'm sure it would have been more like; Maybe the best thing to do is just pull the guys back...not pull "IT". Even though at the time of this alleged call there were no fires being fought at WTC7. But realistically, Silverstein would not be offering the firefighters any advice.
@MiaRyanne How could Silverstein (who's not standing in front of the building) make any suggestions as to what the best thing to do might be? And, why would anyone who isn't an expert on fighting fires be giving suggestions to professionals anyways? It's not plausible. He simply said the "fire official" story as his "official story" should he ever face prosecution. He made it clear that some "mystery fire officer" made the call to "pull it" That is the purpose his rehearsed comment served
@boloboffin Silverstein make a "pull-it" remark twice and (without pause) then we watched the building collapse". Silverstein hired an ex CIA to head his security for the WTC towers. This CIA agent just happened to be the one who attempted to bring forth information that an attack was in the works. He was hired on 9/10 died on 9/11 in WTC. Silverstein's top aid also managed to escape death as he abrubtly cut his meeting short that day and exited the building. All just coincidence?
Silverstein only claimed to talk to the fire dept. to shift the blame to them making the "pull" decision should this case ever be brought to trial. That is why we don't know the "mystery" fire official's name. Everything that is important in 911 is always left unaswered or vague.
@MiaRyanne Your evidence that this is the correct interpretation? Don't have any? That's what I thought. You're free to judge Silverstein based on your prejudice, but you shouldn't think anyone else need view your biased opinion as persuasive.
@boloboffin ...and you are the voice of reason, I assume? My only agenda is to get to the truth, yours might have different motivation.
Apparently, only an authenticated video of Silverstein planting explosives would have you consider him as a suspect. How does every other criminal get charged, questioned and put on trial. They don't need to have video of a murder holding a smoking gun to get a conviction. It's evidence that is presented that declares the person innocent or guilty.
@MiaRyanne That's right, it's evidence that declares a person guilty or innocent and you don't have ANY evidence that Silverstein is lying! NONE. Your own words condemn you.
@boloboffin Evidence is not proof of guilt, it's the first step in arriving at the facts. The facts will either set him free or incriminate him. Once the circumstantial evidence is presented, a judge can determine through testimony and witnesses accounts whether he's lying or telling the truth. I believe the only thing that keeps him on the key side of the bars is the fact he's not been put under oath.
Has anyone asked his Dermatologist if he, in fact, had an appt. that morning, and when it was made? I also want to know who Silverstein supposedly talked to from the NYFD? Why are these simple questions unaswered? Also, Silverstein saying "pull" it's very possible his best way to describe a building implosion, as he's not a implosions expert and therfore could easily have used the wrong term, but, still...when he said it...he used it in conjuction with...then we watched the building collapse.
Why don't we know who Silverstein was talking to? He said it was a "fire commander". If he talked to anyone it could only be a handful of firefighters. Why isn't that information available. I think it's not available because there was no conversation that took place with silverstein and any Fire commander. They don't need to talk to Silverstein to carry out their business. When firefighters are fighting a fire, they don't go to the amateurs for their opinion on what to do next.
@MiaRyanne The fire commander wasn't asking Silverstein what to do next. He was being polite in telling him what was about to happen (i.e., his building was about to be abandoned).
@boloboffin I don't think "polite" played into this. The firemen do what they do regardless of what owners/leaseholders want. They would not be contacted. Prove he was contacted? I say he wasn't and is making it up. You Debunkers thought it was "NIGRO" you were sure of it. Now you know it wasn't..so why don't you want to know who he talked to? The person on the other end of the line would certainly be able to corroberate Silversteins story, right? You're happy with one side of the story?
@boloboffin "Who cares what you think? Who cares what you say? Produce some evidence he's lying if you want to convince me."
Translation: You can't answer the tough questions but are satisfied with simple answers.
You should watch some of his videos where he's talking about where he was that morning. The lies come out of his eyes, his mouth, his demeanor, and probably a few other places too. Seeing through lies is something I happen to be good at. Everybody has their skills, that's mine
@MiaRyanne Like I have been saying, your only evidence is your own personal incredulity. Sorry, I'm not calling anyone a liar based on your prejudices. After all, you accused me of wanting people to not notice a disclaimer that I put in the middle of the video frame. If I didn't want people to notice, I wouldn't have put any disclaimer anywhere! That's direct evidence I have that your lie detection skills suck.
@boloboffin "Who cares what you think? Who cares what you say? Produce some evidence he's lying if you want to convince me."
Translation: You can't answer the tough questions but are satisfied with simple answers.
You should watch some of his videos where he's talking about where he was that morning. The lies come out of his eyes, his mouth, his demeanor, and probably a few other places too. Seeing through lies is something I happen to be good at. Everybody has their skills, that's mine
@boloboffin No, cables were not used to bring down building 7. The reason I asked who he was on the phone with, is because I doubt he was on the phone with anyone from NYFD. He just told story to shift blame away from himself...that's why he said "they" made that decision. At minimum, Silverstein had advance knowledge of the attacks that day. That is why he wasn't in his usual spot in "windows" restaurant that morning... and luckily his kids were running late that morning too.
This is funny..."and fortunately we know exactly the fire department official that Silverstein was talking to". Yes, and we all know Nigro said he didn't talk to Silverstein that day. So, when present one thing as fact and we know it's fiction...how about the rest of the presentation. Next time don't be so lazy...re-do your propaganda video and leave out the part about (FORTUNATELY WE KNOW EXACTLY) instead of adding a little disclaimer window and hope people don't notice. Too funny.
@MiaRyanne Actually, I hoped people would notice the disclaimer window. That's why I added it when I did. I also put the information in the sidebar. That changes nothing about what Nigro also said. That's accurate in the video. So stop distracting yourself with my small mistake and deal with reality.
@MiaRyanne Someone in the fire department explaining why they could not try to save his building. Do you have pictures of the cables used to pull Building 7?
@boloboffin No, cables were not used to bring down building 7. The reason I asked who he was on the phone with, is because I doubt he was on the phone with anyone from NYFD. He just told story to shift blame away from himself...that's why he said "they" made that decision. At minimum, Silverstein had advance knowledge of the attacks that day. That is why he wasn't in his usual spot in "windows" restaurant that morning... and luckily his kids were running late that morning too.
@MiaRyanne That's the only way the demolition industry "pulls" a building, Mia. With cables. So no cables, no "pulled" Building 7. Silverstein had a doctor's appointment that morning. Silverstein is allowed to have doctors' appointments, isn't he? What is your evidence that he "just told story"? You don't have any, do you? Yeah, that's what I thought. Read the Nigro letter linked in the description of the video.
That's what happens when fires go unconstrained for several hours in a skyscraper, the building will give way and collapse like a pancake. It's happened hundreds of times.
@boloboffin Like he pointed out, there is no further need for demolition experts since all we have to do with a steel structure is let 4 - 6 floors burn and the building will implode on itself. All that are needed is a clean up team. 9/11 proved that steel has a much weaker breaking point then its stated 1500 C. In fact all Steel buildings are just as dangerous that during a fire one should presume the building will crumble like the One Meridian Plaza building?
What, rational thought? Why? The conspiracy is much more fun if you disregard EVERYTHING Larry said before the "pull it" line. This way, we can continue our lame detective game with ZERO evidence. -"Truth"ers
Bet if any ''official face'' of our new God, the TV, tells us that there's life on Mars, half of the people would believe it without any evidence, and the others, that can't get the truth, will start making their own theories about it so they will get more and more uncredible. imagine if we repeat days after days that official story without giving the truth...
so the fire has weaken evry structural beam at the same time, the same way?...what r the odds? I'll watch carefully my steel pan when i'm cooking to be sure it wont collapse.... the one who said pull it (maybe by mistake) was Larry.. no one else.. so stop thinking 911 truther thinks evryone exept them r in the conspiracy.
@YorEmixam Um....no. Actually the fire weakened enough beams around the impact zone so that they could no longer support the load of the floors above them. At that point they began to "pancake", floors dropping on one another all the way down. You wouldn't have to weaken the whole building to make a few of the upper floors fall down, only the structure of one or more of the floors supporting them. At that point momentum kicks in.
yeah thanks, once again were all just stupid fucking idiots who dont know the meaning of words and cant put two thoughts together. I know the public school system was designed to do this but remember, some of us were not paying attention, we were too busy being interested in life, girls, athletics, and our own interests. Many of us were considered "bad" for sloughing off our schoolwork, in the end, boy it really saved our asses. I guess we knew instinctively something wasnt right.
you people are full of crap. "Pull It" instead of "Pull them out". Big difference. Even a 1st grader can see what he meant. Brent Blanchard is covering up since he was incharge of the cleanup which destroyed the evidence. Use your brain
I don't get what you are inferring here.-- Deciding -- to pull it means they obviously -- prepared -- in some way (demolition or whatever) to bring the building down. This building obviously went down in a controlled fashion. You have to be a fucken moron to not see it. I'm done with this. Believe in this weasel all you like, it stinks of pooh.
"Establishment" based video..The building was evacuated hours before they collapsed it, including "firefighters". Get the truth! Silverstein is a notorious liar!
Joskel362 1 month ago in playlist WTC owner Larry Silverstein profited from 9/11
@Joskel362 Did Larry say the firefighters were INSIDE the building at the time of the discussion?
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
Comment removed
zenoist2 2 months ago
Dont yout hink a politicianmighht possibly be wise about TV
?
zenoist2 2 months ago
Actually, Nigro admitted that he never talked to Silverstein about pulling it which Silverstein denies...
darkSolutionX 5 months ago
@darkSolutionX Actually, I've included that correction in the annotations and the side materials. Since you're so willing to accept Nigro's statement as true, why don't you believe him when he says no decision was made by the fire department to demolish the buildings?
boloboffin 5 months ago
@boloboffin
I don't trust a lot of things that happened that day and I have read the NIST report. Surely you don'e believe that a steel building with concrete (NIST forgot to include concrete in their analysis) could collapse from fire and into its footprint? Concrete and steel work together to absorb heat.
If you see a building, realize that it is literally a giant steel skeleton reinforced with concrete. Fire hit other buildings worse and no collapse. Yet, everything turn to scrap and dust.
darkSolutionX 5 months ago
@darkSolutionX None of those buildings were reinforced with concrete. They simply were not. That's why NIST "forgot" to include concrete - there was no concrete there. You've brought up a complete falsehood to distract from my question to you. You're willing to believe Nigro just as far as it allows you to disbelieve Silverstein, but not one single step further. That's not seeking for truth. That's stubbornness in service of believing fantasy.
boloboffin 5 months ago 6
@boloboffin
I don't believe Silverstein cause he lied, that is a red flag right there. I believe Nigro, but that doesn't mean that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. How come the NIST won't release all their information to architects and engineers for 911 truth? Why won't they show their prototype models? If a building did collapse due to fire, shouldn't architects and engineers be able to see ALL of their research?
And, not even a pure steel building has collapsed due to fire.
darkSolutionX 5 months ago
@darkSolutionX If silverstein lied, then you cant even trust that the "pull it" quote is accurate.
And odnt use terms you dont understand. Like "prototype." You think it makes you sound smart, but it doesnt.
FYI, steel has failed due to fires often. 450 bypass, McCormick place, kader toys. Its simply a lie to pretend it doesnt.
EdgemanLL2 5 months ago 2
@EdgemanLL2
If you can't show your work in real life then you have no valid claim. A CGI simulation can be deceptive. A prototype is the first working model, which the AE for 911 has asked for. Don't have to be insulting me either. NIST report does not hold up to sound science. Do you realize that New York has some of the strictest building codes?
To make a building fall at free fall you have to remove the base, if you can't see that then you need to
seriously rethink what you are saying.
darkSolutionX 5 months ago
@darkSolutionX "If you can't show your work in real life then you have no valid claim."
Exactly. So either you can show me govt agents participating in the attacks, or you have no valid claim.
PERIOD.
Seriously. Think at ALL!
EdgemanLL2 5 months ago
@EdgemanLL2
Nah, I am just calling for a new Independent Investigation. Everyone needs to be investigated separately, not together like Cheney and Bush. Not saying I know everything and many of my hunches could be wrong, but it took years for Cheney to disclose his whereabouts on 911.
What most people don't know is that the govt had information that they were going to hit us.. That is just scary to me that they didn't react to this info.
darkSolutionX 5 months ago
@darkSolutionX Meaning you have no valid claim.
Understood.
EdgemanLL2 5 months ago
@EdgemanLL2 he said it on live TV for crying out loud!
zenoist2 2 months ago
@zenoist2 Sure, but 1) its not a demo term, and 2) more importantly to the actual point, people say Larry is lying about everything.
Well, if he lies about everything, why pretend his story about talking to FDNY is true?
Ooops!
EdgemanLL2 2 months ago
Truthers, its time to grow and accept you were all manipulated by conspiracy videos which lied, were selective with information, took things out of context, didn't give all the facts etc. Its all been debunked and if it was true it would be irrefutable by now either through undeniable evidence or whistle blowers or probably both. I know you invested a lot of emotion into your theory but face it, you were wrong.
SamCoreJ 6 months ago
@henrim93 They sent in ONE contingent of firefighters, the fires were too severe inside to fight them and the were pulled at whatever time (it doesn't matter), so they wouldn't get trapped by spreading fires. Then later on they predicted it would come down (I already linked you the video where the FDNY firefighter says this, did you miss it?).. You can only really see all the fires on one side (the side that got smacked with debris), but they were internal fires on 20 floors (fact).
theBartone9119 6 months ago
Silverstein talks about "pulling it" in coherence to the buildings collapse (since he in the end says "and then we watched the building collapse"). Thats why it's just an excuse to say that they really meant pulling the firefighters out.
Not to mention that the firefighters where pulled out 5 hours before the building collapsed.
source: whatreallyhappeneddotcom/wrharticles/silverstein_pullit
henrim93 6 months ago
@henrim93 They knew it was going to come down from fire so they pulled the crew of firefighters out to prevent "further loss of life" then he said "we watched the buildings collapse", because it was expected to collapse an hour earlier. Would you leave the firefighters in the building if you knew it was coming down? No, that's why they were pulled. If it was an insurance fraud why would he tell the world in an interview what he did and snitch himself out? Lol Come on have you lost your mind?
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 Well if they were going to try to save the building(number 7), then they would have had to send and keep firefighters into the building in order to "contain the fires" so instead of loosing more firefightres wich probably would happen if they tried to save building number 7 they instead chose to give up on the building, and then they could have made the descision to pull it(the building).
henrim93 6 months ago
@henrim93 "Well if they were going to try to save the building(number 7), then they would have had to send and keep firefighters" But they weren't trying to save Building 7 obviously, they were trying to save the firefigthers lives which is more important, which is why the one contingent was pulled because they knew the fires would take down the building, it's simple man.
"How can that be if all the firefighters where evacueted from the area at 11:23" to save lives, are you dense?
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 1 queston, do you know WHEN mr silverstein recived the call wich he is talking about?
henrim93 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 and once again, if they expectet it to come down "an hour earlier" and therefore they pulled the firefighters out of the building as you say. How can that be if all the firefighters where evacueted from the area at 11:23 that day, over 5 hours before the building went down?
henrim93 6 months ago
@henrim93 Here is a firefighter explaining how the building behind him is going to collapse soon (Building 7):
/watch?v=WnYBX6QT0R4
Here is a reporter who got the message from the FDNY officials that WTC 7 was next to come down:
/watch?v=O-WZpXiEKAo
Basically it was no "mystery" to anyone that day that the building would come down. Many columns from the North Tower weighing 6 tons each smacked into Building 7 and ignited a fire that grew and was unfought for 7 hours, pretty fucking obvious dude.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@henrim93 Debris (multiple steel columns from the North Tower weighing 6 tons each) smashing into a structure (Building 7) at free fall speed spreading fires across 20 floors for 7 hours + large jets carrying 98,800 litres of exploding fuel, with the equivalent explosive power of 100 tons of TNT smashing into Towers at 500 mph, with fires spreading across multiple floors weakening steel trying to support all the weight above it crashing down a single floor below = No need for controlled demo.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 well the windson building in madrid a 32 storey building burned for 24 hours completely eradicating the upper 10 floors(wich eventually fell down) but the rest of the building still stod.
henrim93 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@henrim93 Either way it doesn't matter, there was no need for bombs/Therm*te.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@henrim93 /watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI
That video shows statements from fire fighers saying that at 2pm, they all knew it was coming down. So they probably sensed the danger at 11:23, but all knew it was going to come down eventually at 2pm. Here is a firefighter explaining how the building behind him is going to collapse soon (Building 7):
/watch?v=WnYBX6QT0R4
These are all facts.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
The idiocy of truthers is amazing. They actually want people to believe that Silverstein first committed a multi-billion dollar act of insurance fraud, then admitted to doing so on national TV, and then somehow, 2 years later in 2004, not one of the WTC complex's 24 insurance holders ever raised the issue of possible fraud before paying out a total of about $4.5 Billion in insurance claims. Logic has never seemed to permeate the so called "truth movement".
eaglejoe8 6 months ago 9
how can you ''pull'' a building at a moments notice dont these things need to be set up first ,unless it was prewired of course lol you americans live a lie with such glaringly obvious evidence thats in your face
endracismguy 7 months ago
Lying Jew mobsters and Zionist shills.
DonDKitty 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DonDKitty you fucking racist piece of dog shit.
12weasel100 7 months ago
The key is the Word "It" and not "Them". Case closed. He's going to prison sooner or later because the American people are awakening. And should he die before that day he's still going to be held to account by Allah for all the death and mayhem he's caused. As I said before the sear of hells flame is eternal and when he's feel it and the gravity of eternity and Gods existence, it will make a black hole seem insignificant. La Ila Ha Illa Allah, wa Ashadu Muhammed Rasul Allah.
ChameleonMD123 7 months ago
@ChameleonMD123 "Pull it" as in pull the firefighting crew. Simple. Case closed.
He's not going to prison because there's no evidence of him doing anything wrong. For the second time, have you got anything besides your misinterpretation of two words? Pull it? Is that it? Please tell me you'be got something better than that against him.
thx1138aa 7 months ago
@thx1138aa The truth is I don't need any more against him. Just like I wouldn't need to prove every possible theory wrong to know Casey Anthony is responsible for her daughter's death. Im not a juror. I'm not God. It's not on me to prove or to worry about. But i'm going to speak the truth at every opportunity. Simple as that.
ChameleonMD123 7 months ago
@ChameleonMD123 You're not speaking the truth. You're speaking lies based on your deliberate misinterpretation of two words. You keep blinders on your eyes because you're a gullible, uneducated conspiracy kook.
You claim the key is the word "it" and now you know that refers to the firefighting contingent yet you are so consumed by your conspiracy religion that you can't bear to think rationally. Go off to your conspiracy cult meeting.
thx1138aa 7 months ago
@thx1138aa Jew murderer. 9/11 Inside job.
ChameleonMD123 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChameleonMD123 So it turns out you're a jew-hating bigot. What a surprise. LOL!
thx1138aa 7 months ago
If our own government pulled the WTC down it would have made about as much sense for them to have shot themselves and their family, and plucked their own eyes out with a spoon while they were at it. I have a hard time believing that the USA gov't would have done something so utterly ass-backwards, senseless and politically inefficient.
WhitePlumeMountain 8 months ago
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) say that the damage from Tower 1's collapse played NO role in the collapse of Building 7, and that it was all due to fires. So why wouldn't a hotter, longer fire like the one in Madrid cause it to fall straight downward as well?
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
ModernPlague 9 months ago
@ModernPlague geez!! well they are wrong! what started the fires? Debris from wtc1!!! the structural damage it caused did not, but the fires they stared did! 7 is a totally different design than madrid(no damage), WTC 1 and 2. How difficult is to understand? Fires brought down 7 move on!! All buildings fall straight down thats gravity and physics!!! what was 7 going to do as it collapsed? a back flip? fall over sideways like in cartoons?
lcspies 9 months ago
@ModernPlague Well, NIST (YOUR SOURCE) also confirms the cause was not a controlled demolition. So you lose there.
Weve iliminated the impossible. Its impossible that youre not a moron. It must be true.
EdgemanLL2 8 months ago
There were no firefighters in the building at that time, so of course it's a lie.
And why would the fire commander need Silverstein's opinon?
And how could some limited fires cause the whole building to collapse so symmetrically at nearly free-fall speed?
Go back to sleep America, your government would NEVER lie to you, right?!!!?!
ModernPlague 9 months ago
@ModernPlague The fire commander of the NYFD ordered the pull of 7 not Silverstein. Why would he do that if no personnel or people were in or close to 7? He is not stupid. 7 had many fires on many floors, some even run the entire length of the floor on several floors. The reports, videos, pics where fires can clearly be seen from many parts of 7 are all over you tube and other sites as well. Amazing how truthers never see any fires! or just 2!
lcspies 9 months ago
@lcspies
No firefighters were in the building at the time, so how could they have been "pulled out"?
The fires were minor, limited affairs, not enough to melt steel and cause a building to fall perfectly symmetrically at nearly free-fall speed.
Sorry, I trust the laws of physics & logic more than I trust the U.S. government.
ModernPlague 9 months ago
@ModernPlague No one said steel melted. Fires only have to be hot enough to compromise steel. Fires were not minor! some fires covered the almost the entire floors on several levels of building 7. every face of 7 had fires coming out of the windows. Fire fighters and people were either pulled out or away from 7. You saying the NYFD is stupid? 7 was a two stage collapse, east penthouse collapsed first which caused the main building to collapse about 8 seconds later around 18 sec total.
lcspies 9 months ago
@ModernPlague Steel and concrete overpasses collapse from tanker truck fires. the steel did not melt it was warped and bent of of shape from heat until it collapses. And they are not supporting half an office building weighing 1000+ tons.
lcspies 9 months ago
@ModernPlague Madrid building was not hit by a 767/757 or had any structural damage. You forget the condition the buildings are in after the structural damage. the fire just aided the collapse, they may have collapsed even without the fire who knows. WTC 7 fires minor compared with madrid fire? well duh! But any fire that engulfs almost the entire floor on several stories plus dozens of other fires in any building is not "minor".
lcspies 9 months ago
Nice try, with clever word smithing.. But Larry said "pull it, and they made that decision to pull" in the same sentence as "we watched the building collapse". "It" is a building. "Them" would be for people. There were no firefighters in the building at that time, so there were no "them" to speak of. Only an empty buildilng, and "it".
TruthMakesPeace 11 months ago
@TruthMakesPeace You forget to mention that Silverstein said "Maybe" the best thing to do is to pull it. Maybe? Sounds like he's not sure. But if he was behind a big bad demolition conspiracy, why would he express doubt.
He also did not say "we" made the decision to pull or "I" made the decision. He said "they" made that decision. Who is the "they" that decided to pull?
bagintree 10 months ago
-Hahaaaaaa! Slick-media try by deviously murderous jewZionists to frantically cover-up obvious 'smoking-gun confession' unwittingly committed by one of the key Mossad-agents "Lucky Larry" (-fastest $4.5-Billion jewArson-profit in Real-estate history!). What really happened was that L.Silverstein was caught on video-cam in his make-shift NY-office by a mobile NPR/TV-crew that happened-in as this criminal was in the midst of making his "Pull-it" -command to his anxious Mossad/Demo-agents...!!!
AryanKnight 11 months ago
@AryanKnight I sexed your jew mom last night!! Now run along to bead Hymie you want to get lots of sleep for your Bar Mitzvah tomoro!! Your moma told me all you do is "PULL-IT" to pictures of lucky Larry ....wow what a fag!!!!
buck65100 10 months ago
@buck65100 --Here folks, is the result of a Jew-father impregnating his daughter, --muddled-up dna wherein the brain-neurons of the offspring are tragically diminished...!!!
AryanKnight 10 months ago
A chilling possibility: Those tall buildings in a densely populated area could be rigged - by design- with stealt self destruct features that can be triggered at will. "We've had such terrible lost of life..." suggests that pulling it would spare more life by preventing such a tall structure to fall sideways. Understandably, such feature would'nt be publicized. Now, what about planes, after 9/11?
guygparent 11 months ago
THIS NARRATOR IS GIVING TONS OF COMMENTARY WITH NO PROOF OF WHERE ITS COMMING FROM .
THEY DIDNT USE CABLES ON WTC 7 ....IT WAS TOO TALL.
AND NONE OF WHAT L.S. SAYS, MATCHES ANYTHING THE FIREMEN SAY.
HE ALSO SAID HE HAD A DOC. APPT., BUT HIS BEST FRIEND SAID HE GOT A WARNING CALL NOT TO GO, AND HE CALLED HIS DAUGHTER TO WARN HER TOO.. LIKE THE OTHER 30,000 PEOPLE THAT WERNT THERE AT 9AM....THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID THEY WERE WARNED..AND THE EARLY BBC BROADCAST IS JUST TOO MUCH !
13AJJONES 1 year ago
Google (firefighters "WTC building 7" "decision fairly early on" +"water supply" OR +"city water main")
The fires were out of control because city water main for it had broken & the sprinkler system & fire hose stations on each floor had no water. Without water, the firefighters would have to supply themselves up to 47 stories. Firefighters early on had decided NOT to put effort into fighting the fire in that building. Building had been evacuated early. No firefighters to "pull" from it.
oldspammer 1 year ago
@oldspammer Plus firefighters are not an 'it', and 'pull it' doesn't have to be a professional demolition term or whatever's argued. All it means is to bring something down, like how we say a video was 'pulled' from youtube. He meant that they brought the building down for safety reasons, but since that's impossible it's admission of guilt by default. Lucky for him most people are sheep and look at the rich people and politicians/government as 'daddy' and never suspect them of everything
dubified89 1 year ago
@dubified89 Pull "it" as in pull the firefighting crew. He even clarified that he was talking about the firefighters. THe firefighters used the word "pull" that day too in reference to pulling back from the buidlings on fire. Why is it so hard for truthers to get this through their skulls? Is there anything else that indicates Silverstein was part of a demolition plot? Anything at all?
buddyfreakinhoIIy 11 months ago 14
@buddyfreakinhoIIy Imagine that. Are you an idiot or a shill? He said maybe the best idea was to pull it..........and then they made a decision to pull it. Try again bucko, the lies falling apart. And all the bullshit propaganda you treasonous nitwits put forward isn't going to save you. No army on earth can stop an idea who's time has come. Truth will always win in the end. Judgement Day is coming and the sear of Hell's flame is eternal.
ChameleonMD123 7 months ago
@ChameleonMD123 If he was involving in carrying out the whole thing, then why would he say "maybe?"
Got any evidence of Silverstein's supposed guilt besides your misinterpretation of 2 words? Anything at all? Or do you just like to smear innocent people?
Looks like you're the one that's the bullshitting, treasonous nitwit.
thx1138aa 7 months ago
Comment removed
ChameleonMD123 7 months ago
Finally a video that gets it right. "Pull" is not an industry term for bringing down a building with explosives. That's why the conspiracy folks can't find an example of it being used that way.
13falls123 1 year ago
@13falls123 Hey the maker of this video is lying so I think it should be pulled from the site. Oh look I just used it in the exact context that Silverstein used it in. He is NOT a demolition worker he's a fucking business tycoon so the fact that it's not a proper demolition term is irrelevant.
dubified89 1 year ago
As for this video...whoever this guy is rest assured he is an idiot....man you're weaving a web of pure ridiculum. I listened with wide open hears and when you had finished I had it wrapped all over me like cotton candy. Nice try asshole.
MattIndigoWilliams 1 year ago
And the attempted whitewash continues. So sad that so many people can't see what's been smacking them right in their sleeping faces for over nine years.
Stepper11 1 year ago
This video is total lie!!!!!1
Mrjaguarpaw1 1 year ago
ok, so were cables used in building 7? No. "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse" ie something caused the building to collapse... it didn't happen spontaneously like the government says. Plus, the word "pull" is regularly used in the demolition industry, and there is plenty of evidence for it. WTC 7 was evacuated very early on, it was only around 4.00pm that spectators were removed from the secene.
missopinionated1976 1 year ago
Side link to the right side of your screen, Click on "WeAreCHANGE confronts Larry Silverstein.
When questioned about the fire chief he claims to have spoken to (person asking the question mentioned how *that* firefighter said he never had 'that' conversation w/silverstein never happened. Silverstein gets very agitated from this and in his wormy way answers back with, "...uhm let's go on to the next question." please check it out.
Echdrum 1 year ago
@Echdrum Yeah he slipped up in that interrogation, for us regular folk that would mean a likely prosecution. You know like how the cops separate people and interview them each alone and try to find contradictions in their story, when they're accused of a crime? But when it's someone with wealth and power it doesn't matter as much because they tell the cops what to do, not vice versa. And many if not most people will fall in line and defend these people of anything, probably because they want
dubified89 1 year ago
@dubified89 what these guys have. They want the same primitive power and prestige. They don't care about things like virtue and honesty, what use are those things? I honestly think that's what it comes down. So 9/11 is just a symptom of a larger sickness among people in society if you think about it. Maybe the reason so many people deny 'conspiracy theories' is because looking at their masters critically would also mean having to look realistically at themselves, and people don't want to do that
dubified89 1 year ago
@dubified89 Sure,rich people are treated differently. But that doesn't automatically mean he's guilty. What's the evidence against him? Got anything better than a misinterpretation of 2 words? "Pull it." Is that all you've got?
buddyfreakinhoIIy 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GRADE A DISINFO! from: thefreedictionaryDOTcom/pull+down pull down:
1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
from: diclib.com Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner's English Dictionary 4th edition: To pull down a building or statue means to deliberately destroy it.
from: websters-online-dictionaryDOTorg pull: 4: [Verb] To demolish; to subvert; to destroy. In political affairs, as well as mechanical. from princetonDOTedu# tear down so as to make flat with the ground.
Dawgtha 1 year ago
GRADE A DISINFO! from: thefreedictionaryDOTcom/pull+down pull down:
1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
from: diclib.com Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner's English Dictionary 4th edition: To pull down a building or statue means to deliberately destroy it.
from: websters-online-dictionaryDOTorg pull: 4: [Verb] To demolish; to subvert; to destroy. In political affairs, as well as mechanical. from princetonDOTedu# tear down so as to make flat with the ground.
Dawgtha 1 year ago
@Dawgtha Except he didnt say "pull down."
Oooops.
EdgemanLL2 11 months ago
@EdgemanLL2 Please read all my comments before making you're-self look retarded.
Ooooops.
;)
Dawgtha 11 months ago
@Dawgtha Please ask an adult to expalin to you what "except he didnt say pull down" means. Since youre still too retarded to get it.
Ooops! HAHAHAHA! :::points and laughs::: BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!
EdgemanLL2 11 months ago
Well let's not forget, all the explosions that were heard for all those who were there. I don't think any cables can cause those extremely loud explosions.
ebmirador 1 year ago
@ebmirador There were no loud explosions at the time of WTC 7's collapse.
PoetryHound 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PoetryHound So where was the WTC 1 antenna found ? Day 11 of you ignoring this question, WHY is that ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
@PoetryHound You are mistaken, according to the video of firefighters firsthand account.
d3ejmz 1 year ago
is beyond me! They had advanced knowledge of the attacks and were more than happy to watch the horror from the safety of his executive suite somewhere in the vicinity im sure, where they sat and drank the blood of the "True hardworking victims!" People jumped for their lives that day from 100s of floors up so he can sit on a golden toilet seat n wipe his ass with his lizard tongue! I feel so bad for those people until this very day, i was 11 at the time and did not understand. Today i do! US(Gay
MitchyTheDon 1 year ago
@MitchyTheDon "more than happy to watch the horror"
Huh? Where are you getting this from? You're just making it up. Silverstein may be a billionaire, but he didn't cause 911. That's just silliness.
PoetryHound 1 year ago
Right... So they "Pulled" the building with cables.... Ok you try showing me how you pull a gigantic building down with cables any time in this century and ill be happy. if anything the whole fuckin thing would of collapsed unevenly. Not in the way it did! Which was controlled with explosives floor by floor!!! Why are some people so dumb and are still in denial about perfect America, Larry silverstein is a slimy money grabbing zionist. How his whole family escaped without a scrath that day
MitchyTheDon 1 year ago
@MitchyTheDon In demo terms, "pull" means using cables. Since obviously no cables were used, then Silverstein was not using a demo term but one of the other definitions of "pull." There ARE other definitions of the word you know.
BTW, what's the evidence against Silverstein? Got anything better than the misinterpretation of one word? All insurance payouts are going to rebuilding.
PoetryHound 1 year ago
Did you know that building 6 was in between WTC towers 1 and 7... IN BETWEEN... ok, now that you are aware of that. Perhaps you would care to explain to me why building 5 didn't collapse? Major fires.. check, structural damage... check, didn't collapse... check! My thought on the matter are that buildings 4, 5, and 6 didn't need to be demolished on 9/11 for the war on terror to push forward without a declaration. You know as well as I do which agencies benefited the most from 9/11.
baihbalm 1 year ago
@baihbalm Building 6 was eight stories high, a much smaller building. It had a radically different structure. And there actually was a partial collapse of the building's structure due to debris hitting it.
boloboffin 1 year ago
@boloboffin but it didn't collapse like a domo'd building, did it? why was that? the fires weren't strong enough? The building was right next to WTC 1, if anything, I should have collapsed before building 7. Oh wait... it housed the US customs agency. A completely incompetent agency even to this day... look at our borders! Guess who's job it was to screen the terrorists who came across from Saudi Arabia... a country we should be at war with... get a clue man.
baihbalm 1 year ago
@baihbalm Neither did 7. Demo'd buildings don't start with one column the way 7's collapse did. Why should your inflamed sense of personal incredulity inform my understanding in any way?
boloboffin 1 year ago
@boloboffin explain what you mean by one column? And also, try to explain why building 6 didn't collapse. I know it was smaller, that's obvious. But the structural damage to the building was far worse then that of building 7, and yet it stood... was building 7 hit by a plane I didn't see? Not to mention building 4 and 5, which were both later demolished.
baihbalm 1 year ago
@baihbalm Column 79. There was no equivalent structure in Buildings 4, 5, and 6 to Column 79. NIST's modeling determined that only two floors of 79 had to be removed from an otherwise sound Building 7 for the entire building to collapse. With NO fire. WTC 7 had a design flaw, and the fire exploited it. 4, 5, and 6 didn't have such a flaw, and the structures stood.
boloboffin 1 year ago
@boloboffin The fire didn't do shit, there have been far worse fires to other buildings of similar build (and much older). Yet building 7 is the first and probably last steel frame building to collapse. Well there's always firsts I suppose, there just happen to be a bunch of firsts that day... I'm going to look up NIST and see what I can find out. Thanks for info, you may very well be right, anything is possible... I just think it was too convenient as to just who benefited from 9/11 tragedy
baihbalm 1 year ago
@baihbalm Definitely look up the NIST reports. All the fires had to do in 7 was thermally expand floor beams around Column 79 and thus cause a local collapse, robbing 79 of critical support. Then the whole building would go. PS: Damage from debris is only important as to how building fell (the path of progression), not why.
boloboffin 1 year ago
@boloboffin You know, I was looking through the report... and it will take many hours to see if you didn't just make up what you said, so don't get too comfortable yet. The experience I've had with federal agencies has been mostly negative in the sense that they use an unnecessary about of resources to produce mediocre results/products. I'm speaking from my time working with Hanford employees a few years back on a project that was halted due to incompetence... but that's beside the point.
baihbalm 1 year ago
@baihbalm The government is certainly to blame for producing and burying all the radioactive crap at Hanford, but any problems in recent decades would be at least partly the fault of the contractors that have been running the place.
I don't have a problem with people blaming the government for various things, but I wonder why they think private corporations are any better.
PoetryHound 1 year ago
@PoetryHound The difference is accountability. Though there are exceptions for private companies in bed with the government... like Lockheed Martin, big banks (bail outs), large military contractors. So, I'm not sure what you mean by 'recent decades' I've lived in the Hanford area for the past 'recent decades', seems like more of the same bullshit as usual to me and just about everyone else here. Even those who work for the government think they are incompetent. Lookup vitrification plant.
baihbalm 1 year ago
@baihbalm Both the government & its contractors (Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse, etc.) lack accountability. I happen to have worked with whistleblowers from Hanford. I heard plenty of horror stories about the contractors - radioactive releases, cover-ups of the releases, incorrect or malfunctioning air filters, false reporting, radioactive tumbleweeds! I'm not letting the government off the hook, but the contractors were down there in the muck just as much if not more.
PoetryHound 1 year ago
2) I haven't heard about problems at the vitrification plant, but I know about the problems at the N reactor before it closed, and of course the underground storage tanks. We had maps of tritium plumes going into the Colombia River. Complete disregard for safety, the environment, or any kind of accountability.
PoetryHound 1 year ago
@PoetryHound Most recent trouble -> thenewstribune /2010/09/14/1340675/bechtel-accused-of-ignoring-safety.html
Major Problems in the past - thenewstribune /2010/07/28/1280094/ex-vit-plant-official-raises-safety.html
Worst Problem with vit Plant -> whistleblower /program-areas/environment/nuclear-oversight/hanford
baihbalm 1 year ago
@PoetryHound No doubt, I agree with what you say. But an important factor you didn't mention is that those very companies you prosecute are the very ones in bed with congress (lobbying). So yeah, those companies are just as corrupt, or more so. The issue can be resolved quite easily by shrinking government (substantially) so that that lobbying will not be such a strong determining factor in rewarding major contracts. Honestly, it's either lobby, or get stuck with a crap contract. It's wrong.
baihbalm 1 year ago
@boloboffin Fire has never brought down a steel framed building before 911 and has never taken one down since. What makes 911 any different?
seonf 1 year ago
@seonf Substitute "nanothermite" for the word "fire" in your statement, and it's just as true.
boloboffin 1 year ago
@boloboffin I don't know what brought down WTC 7 but it wasn't fire. Come on fire can't melt steel.
seonf 1 year ago
@seonf Fire didn't have to melt steel in any of the WTC buildings.
boloboffin 1 year ago
@boloboffin So how did they collapse then? The jet fuel conspiracy theory?
seonf 1 year ago
@seonf Actually reading the NIST reports instead of relying on sharks and snake oil salesmen for what they say would truly assist you in this situation.
boloboffin 1 year ago
@boloboffin So It was misunderstanding, i knew the government wouldnt lie to me, you made everything so much more clearer now... I guees Silverdick got all that insurance money from 911 by accident.
zip68 1 year ago
@seonf yes fire can melt steel how do you think they make it? or melt it down to recycle it? fire! but no steel melted in 1, 2, or 7. Can we move on now?
lcspies 9 months ago
that was a lot of explaining to do... you forgot to mention the buildings that Silverstein didn't own did not collapse... but that's just coincidence right? This guy lives off bullshit, and now will donate some money to charity to erase these... inconveniences.
baihbalm 1 year ago
@baihbalm Silverstein held the lease on 1, 2, 3, and 7. They collapsed. Silverstein held the lease on 4, 5, and 6. They didn't. Silverstein didn't hold the lease on St. Nicholas. It collapsed. Silverstein didn't hold the lease on lots of other buildings. They didn't. You really don't have a point here.
boloboffin 1 year ago
BBC reported the collapse before it fell.
jhess125 1 year ago
@jhess125 So? What does that have to do with either Silverstein or anything at all? BBC making a mistake is not the proof you seek.
boloboffin 1 year ago
Nice spin!!! Whos paying your wages Silverstein? you sell-out!!!
jason591 1 year ago
lol
kewlmark72 1 year ago
Let's see if Silverstein can prove he was at the dermatologist and when the appt. was booked. Let's see if Silverstein can tell us who he spoke to on the phone that day? Let him explain why he said "maybe the best thing to do is pull-it" "and they made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse". How about his kids being held up in traffic that day too? All these questions need firm answers. Phone records could answer a few of these questions in court. Why is he immune?
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
@MiaRyanne Silverstein is "immune" as you put it because you have NO PROBABLE CAUSE to demand that documentation from him. NONE. He doesn't have to explain jack to you because all you have on him is your own prejudice.
boloboffin 1 year ago
@boloboffin We have enough that he should be required to answer some questions. WTC 7 was owned by him for much longer than the other buildings, it came down under mysterious circumstances. He received a large sum of insurance money. He happened to not be in the building that morning...and only that morning (since he took the 99 year lease). His kids were to be at a meeting in the WTC towers that morning too. Independent of each other both his kids ran late that day and were "lucky" too.
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
@MiaRyanne You have NOTHING but your own personal credulity. Finding it incredible that people were running late in Manhattan doesn't speak well for your sense of credulity.
boloboffin 1 year ago
@boloboffin Silverstein make a "pull-it" remark twice and (without pause) then we watched the building collapse". Silverstein hired an ex CIA to head his security for the WTC towers. This CIA agent just happened to be the one who attempted to bring forth information that an attack was in the works. He was hired on 9/10 died on 9/11 in WTC. Silverstein's top aid also managed to escape death as he abrubtly cut his meeting short that day and exited the building. All just coincidence?
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
@MiaRyanne Silverstein's second "pull" comment was "they made the decision to pull." In other words, the fire department. And firefighters don't do controlled demolition. They do pull their people away from dangerous buildings.
boloboffin 1 year ago
@boloboffin "in other words" is probably how Silverstein should have said it then...but he chose those words...and said them twice...not an accident. If he said what you are trying to "make fit" then I'm sure it would have been more like; Maybe the best thing to do is just pull the guys back...not pull "IT". Even though at the time of this alleged call there were no fires being fought at WTC7. But realistically, Silverstein would not be offering the firefighters any advice.
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
@MiaRyanne How could Silverstein (who's not standing in front of the building) make any suggestions as to what the best thing to do might be? And, why would anyone who isn't an expert on fighting fires be giving suggestions to professionals anyways? It's not plausible. He simply said the "fire official" story as his "official story" should he ever face prosecution. He made it clear that some "mystery fire officer" made the call to "pull it" That is the purpose his rehearsed comment served
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boloboffin Silverstein make a "pull-it" remark twice and (without pause) then we watched the building collapse". Silverstein hired an ex CIA to head his security for the WTC towers. This CIA agent just happened to be the one who attempted to bring forth information that an attack was in the works. He was hired on 9/10 died on 9/11 in WTC. Silverstein's top aid also managed to escape death as he abrubtly cut his meeting short that day and exited the building. All just coincidence?
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
Silverstein only claimed to talk to the fire dept. to shift the blame to them making the "pull" decision should this case ever be brought to trial. That is why we don't know the "mystery" fire official's name. Everything that is important in 911 is always left unaswered or vague.
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
@MiaRyanne Your evidence that this is the correct interpretation? Don't have any? That's what I thought. You're free to judge Silverstein based on your prejudice, but you shouldn't think anyone else need view your biased opinion as persuasive.
boloboffin 1 year ago
@boloboffin ...and you are the voice of reason, I assume? My only agenda is to get to the truth, yours might have different motivation.
Apparently, only an authenticated video of Silverstein planting explosives would have you consider him as a suspect. How does every other criminal get charged, questioned and put on trial. They don't need to have video of a murder holding a smoking gun to get a conviction. It's evidence that is presented that declares the person innocent or guilty.
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
@MiaRyanne That's right, it's evidence that declares a person guilty or innocent and you don't have ANY evidence that Silverstein is lying! NONE. Your own words condemn you.
boloboffin 1 year ago
@boloboffin Evidence is not proof of guilt, it's the first step in arriving at the facts. The facts will either set him free or incriminate him. Once the circumstantial evidence is presented, a judge can determine through testimony and witnesses accounts whether he's lying or telling the truth. I believe the only thing that keeps him on the key side of the bars is the fact he's not been put under oath.
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
@MiaRyanne You've got to have probable cause to investigate him like that. You've presented nothing to meet that standard.
boloboffin 1 year ago
Has anyone asked his Dermatologist if he, in fact, had an appt. that morning, and when it was made? I also want to know who Silverstein supposedly talked to from the NYFD? Why are these simple questions unaswered? Also, Silverstein saying "pull" it's very possible his best way to describe a building implosion, as he's not a implosions expert and therfore could easily have used the wrong term, but, still...when he said it...he used it in conjuction with...then we watched the building collapse.
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
Shorter @MiaRyanne: "No, I don't have any evidence that Silverstein's story is incorrect."
boloboffin 1 year ago
Why don't we know who Silverstein was talking to? He said it was a "fire commander". If he talked to anyone it could only be a handful of firefighters. Why isn't that information available. I think it's not available because there was no conversation that took place with silverstein and any Fire commander. They don't need to talk to Silverstein to carry out their business. When firefighters are fighting a fire, they don't go to the amateurs for their opinion on what to do next.
MiaRyanne 1 year ago 11
@MiaRyanne The fire commander wasn't asking Silverstein what to do next. He was being polite in telling him what was about to happen (i.e., his building was about to be abandoned).
boloboffin 1 year ago
@boloboffin I don't think "polite" played into this. The firemen do what they do regardless of what owners/leaseholders want. They would not be contacted. Prove he was contacted? I say he wasn't and is making it up. You Debunkers thought it was "NIGRO" you were sure of it. Now you know it wasn't..so why don't you want to know who he talked to? The person on the other end of the line would certainly be able to corroberate Silversteins story, right? You're happy with one side of the story?
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
@MiaRyanne Who cares what you think? Who cares what you say? Produce some evidence he's lying if you want to convince me.
boloboffin 1 year ago
@boloboffin "Who cares what you think? Who cares what you say? Produce some evidence he's lying if you want to convince me."
Translation: You can't answer the tough questions but are satisfied with simple answers.
You should watch some of his videos where he's talking about where he was that morning. The lies come out of his eyes, his mouth, his demeanor, and probably a few other places too. Seeing through lies is something I happen to be good at. Everybody has their skills, that's mine
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
@MiaRyanne Like I have been saying, your only evidence is your own personal incredulity. Sorry, I'm not calling anyone a liar based on your prejudices. After all, you accused me of wanting people to not notice a disclaimer that I put in the middle of the video frame. If I didn't want people to notice, I wouldn't have put any disclaimer anywhere! That's direct evidence I have that your lie detection skills suck.
boloboffin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boloboffin "Who cares what you think? Who cares what you say? Produce some evidence he's lying if you want to convince me."
Translation: You can't answer the tough questions but are satisfied with simple answers.
You should watch some of his videos where he's talking about where he was that morning. The lies come out of his eyes, his mouth, his demeanor, and probably a few other places too. Seeing through lies is something I happen to be good at. Everybody has their skills, that's mine
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
@MiaRyanne In this video he's titled leaseholder. He 'Owned' the Property.
wigdomeitsallthesame 1 year ago
@MiaRyanne Ok, have it your way. The conversation never took place, and Larry never said "pull it."
Edge wins!
EdgemanLL2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boloboffin No, cables were not used to bring down building 7. The reason I asked who he was on the phone with, is because I doubt he was on the phone with anyone from NYFD. He just told story to shift blame away from himself...that's why he said "they" made that decision. At minimum, Silverstein had advance knowledge of the attacks that day. That is why he wasn't in his usual spot in "windows" restaurant that morning... and luckily his kids were running late that morning too.
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So, who was Silverstein on the phone with?
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
This is funny..."and fortunately we know exactly the fire department official that Silverstein was talking to". Yes, and we all know Nigro said he didn't talk to Silverstein that day. So, when present one thing as fact and we know it's fiction...how about the rest of the presentation. Next time don't be so lazy...re-do your propaganda video and leave out the part about (FORTUNATELY WE KNOW EXACTLY) instead of adding a little disclaimer window and hope people don't notice. Too funny.
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
@MiaRyanne Actually, I hoped people would notice the disclaimer window. That's why I added it when I did. I also put the information in the sidebar. That changes nothing about what Nigro also said. That's accurate in the video. So stop distracting yourself with my small mistake and deal with reality.
boloboffin 1 year ago
@boloboffin So, who was Silverstein on the phone with?
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
@MiaRyanne Someone in the fire department explaining why they could not try to save his building. Do you have pictures of the cables used to pull Building 7?
boloboffin 1 year ago
@boloboffin No, cables were not used to bring down building 7. The reason I asked who he was on the phone with, is because I doubt he was on the phone with anyone from NYFD. He just told story to shift blame away from himself...that's why he said "they" made that decision. At minimum, Silverstein had advance knowledge of the attacks that day. That is why he wasn't in his usual spot in "windows" restaurant that morning... and luckily his kids were running late that morning too.
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
@MiaRyanne That's the only way the demolition industry "pulls" a building, Mia. With cables. So no cables, no "pulled" Building 7. Silverstein had a doctor's appointment that morning. Silverstein is allowed to have doctors' appointments, isn't he? What is your evidence that he "just told story"? You don't have any, do you? Yeah, that's what I thought. Read the Nigro letter linked in the description of the video.
boloboffin 1 year ago
Gee.
That's what happens when fires go unconstrained for several hours in a skyscraper, the building will give way and collapse like a pancake. It's happened hundreds of times.
jstrouse 1 year ago
@sempalov Obviously you don't have any use for demolition experts, since you're dismissing the one I quoted in the video.
boloboffin 1 year ago
@boloboffin Like he pointed out, there is no further need for demolition experts since all we have to do with a steel structure is let 4 - 6 floors burn and the building will implode on itself. All that are needed is a clean up team. 9/11 proved that steel has a much weaker breaking point then its stated 1500 C. In fact all Steel buildings are just as dangerous that during a fire one should presume the building will crumble like the One Meridian Plaza building?
Tzimnewman3 1 year ago
@sempalov Firefighters don't demolish buildings. They pull their people out of needlessly dangerous situations.
boloboffin 1 year ago
What, rational thought? Why? The conspiracy is much more fun if you disregard EVERYTHING Larry said before the "pull it" line. This way, we can continue our lame detective game with ZERO evidence. -"Truth"ers
johnnymac497 1 year ago
this is total crap. think for yourself. this guy profited off the lives of thousand innocent americans.
widgert 1 year ago
@widgert
"this guy profited off the lives of thousand innocent americans."
No he didn't. He actually lost money. All insurance payouts are going to rebuilding.
PoetryZound 1 year ago
Bet if any ''official face'' of our new God, the TV, tells us that there's life on Mars, half of the people would believe it without any evidence, and the others, that can't get the truth, will start making their own theories about it so they will get more and more uncredible. imagine if we repeat days after days that official story without giving the truth...
YorEmixam 1 year ago
so the fire has weaken evry structural beam at the same time, the same way?...what r the odds? I'll watch carefully my steel pan when i'm cooking to be sure it wont collapse.... the one who said pull it (maybe by mistake) was Larry.. no one else.. so stop thinking 911 truther thinks evryone exept them r in the conspiracy.
YorEmixam 1 year ago
@YorEmixam Um....no. Actually the fire weakened enough beams around the impact zone so that they could no longer support the load of the floors above them. At that point they began to "pancake", floors dropping on one another all the way down. You wouldn't have to weaken the whole building to make a few of the upper floors fall down, only the structure of one or more of the floors supporting them. At that point momentum kicks in.
tammyscotland 1 year ago
yeah thanks, once again were all just stupid fucking idiots who dont know the meaning of words and cant put two thoughts together. I know the public school system was designed to do this but remember, some of us were not paying attention, we were too busy being interested in life, girls, athletics, and our own interests. Many of us were considered "bad" for sloughing off our schoolwork, in the end, boy it really saved our asses. I guess we knew instinctively something wasnt right.
N1k1mon 1 year ago
LMAO! Twoofers Suck!
WeAreChangeDebunked 1 year ago
you people are full of crap. "Pull It" instead of "Pull them out". Big difference. Even a 1st grader can see what he meant. Brent Blanchard is covering up since he was incharge of the cleanup which destroyed the evidence. Use your brain
Origin305 1 year ago
Brent Blanchard was one of the people in charge of destroying the evidence. OFCOARSE HE SAYS THAT!!!
Origin305 1 year ago
I don't get what you are inferring here.-- Deciding -- to pull it means they obviously -- prepared -- in some way (demolition or whatever) to bring the building down. This building obviously went down in a controlled fashion. You have to be a fucken moron to not see it. I'm done with this. Believe in this weasel all you like, it stinks of pooh.
logicCplusplus 1 year ago
THIS IS A HIT PIECE=LIES. WAKE THE FU*K UP PEOPLE!
''Watch we are change'' confront Larry Scum Bag Silverstein
and you decide for yourself who is lying!
/watch?v=EtPC0W4HII8
NoNORADon911 1 year ago
So basically, I just refuted the crap in this video. Please take it down before anything gets the wrong idea.
logicCplusplus 1 year ago
@logicCplusplus You've refuted nothing. Sorry, the video stays. You're just going to have to deal.
boloboffin 1 year ago
@logicCplusplus, so what you are saying is that he should ... pull it?
Luftbahnfahrer 1 year ago