All three buildings were pre-wired to be destroyed.

There is no question about it.
No doubt.

Imagine being one of the people standing in one of the 'holes' in the WTC. As one of those people, you may have already seen the DRONE PLANE. It is likely that MANY people trapped on those floors DID see the DRONES.

They had to be killed.

However, here in America, MURDERS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE LOSSES!

Silverstein will go down. And he will take the rest of 'them' with him.

Unless they off him first.

We must hurry!


I beleive the reason 7 was pulled was so 'they' COULD GET THE GOLD!!!

As far as im concerned "pull it" means that the fire fighters were going to stop putting out fires and pretty much leave the building to its fate. As far as thinking it was deliberately destroyed I agree that it was. I just don't think anyone would be so stupid as to admit it on live TV.

I believe that building 7 was the base of operation for the entire 9/11 attack and the evidence had to be destroyed.

I agree with JackHorner on this one, although I do think wtc7 was demo'd as well. Just not by Larry. So, not that I'm far off from the original threads author, I suscribe to the fact that the gold was an important part in this deed, but wtc7, like Jack said, housed senstive information from many agencies and I feel that also plays a part in why they added this to the plan.

Hmmm...
I see...
As far as im concerned, you are they
(Bet that happens around here a lot)
{as it get's hotter in here, I don't suppose I'll be allowed to see much more of it}

I don't know how you can think that. He's very clear about what 'it' meant. He is a native english speaker. There's no ambiguity in the statement. Maybe the smart is thing to do is pull it.

When referring to a group of people, you do not use the term 'it'. Nobody does.

Find, use google if you must, ANY usage of the word 'it' when describing any group or contingent of firefighters or other responders. Ever. Any example anywhere of an english speaker making that grammatical error.

The correct way of saying that is, "Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull them', and they made that decision to pull them out, and we watched the building collapse'.

People aren't 'it's', not even a group of them. It is crystal clear what he meant if you are not in deep deep denial.

And when has a high rise building ever been left to it's own fate? (or read, when has a high rise ever collapsed due to fire, ever?).

There is too much money involved in just letting something like that burn. By saying "pull it" Silverstein should not have been able to collect money on that building's insurance, since he stopped trying to prevent it's disaster.

Or maybe he ment "pull it" as in, to pull the operation that was underway to save the building from fire.

Do you guys really think the fire fighters were in charge of the demolition? Why would he tell the fire fighters to pull (blow up) the building? Do you really think that if this was some conspiracy that they would put the demolition in the hands of some fire fighters? It would have been leaked by now if that was the case. He says that "they made that decision to pull (the operation of trying to save it) and we watched the building collapse."

Now I’m not saying it wasn't deliberately demolished, I believe it was, but what he said on TV about pulling it is not what you guys think it is.

I BEG YOU TO PROVE THERE WERE FIREFIGHTERS INSIDE WTC7 AT ANY POINT OF THAT DAY TRYING TO EXTINGUISH THE FIRES. THERE WASN'T. THE TWIN TOWERS HAD JUST COLLAPSED. NO ONE WAS LOOKING AT WTC7 AND NO ONE CARED ABOUT WTC7. UNLIKE THE TOWERS WHERE EVERYONE WAS TOLD TO GO BACK TO THEIR OFFICES AND WAIT, WTC7 WAS EVACUATED. AND THE FDNY AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS WERE MORE WORRIED ABOUT THE COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS AND SAVING LIVES THEN FIGHTING FIRES IN WTC7. YOU ACT LIKE THEY DIDN'T LOSE A TON OF THEIR OWN PERSONEL.


SO ONCE AGAIN, I BEG, NO I DARE YOU TO PROVE SOMEONE WAS FIGHTING FIRES INSIDE WTC7.

Well, since you're begging and daring, there you go...


http://cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp...20wtc7collapses


What did you say? Oh, sure you're welcome!

Thank you, Finally someone with my opinion of this, why would Larry Silverstein be SOO stupid to admit this TO PBS OF ALL PEOPLE!! If he was involved with this there is absolutely no way he would admit this to anybody in the public, and if he did by accident he would have been KILLED. I hate when Alex starts screaming to people about Pull it, i just roll my eyes.

Anyone read the deposition posted on redlineav.com?

I'd like to know if it is true that the EPA was ordering the "decomissioning" of WTC1 and WTC2 by 2007, because of structural defects that had developed. If that is true, and studies determined it was going to cost 20Billion to take the towers down the "right" way, and if it is true that the idea to publicly bring the towers down via CD was nixxed (due to dangerous environmental repercussions), then Mr. Silverstein sure as heck had a reason to support the "terrorists did it" story about what really happened that day. And with the insurance policies he had in place, destroying WTC7 would have been no additional big deal, and it would have indeed been necessary if Guiliani's bunker was a control center for the activities leading up to the CD.

Think about it. The rent was dropping. The buildings may have been deteriorating. The cost to bring them down was prohibitive. CD was forbidden. Voila! Use CD anyway but blame it on terrorists instead!

Just a thought.

911wasaninsidejob - I agree with you and Jack Horner too my friend, so you're not alone in thinking this. I don't understand why so many 911truther's believe in Larry's quote. It amazes me, but I don't argue anymore with people as if they really want to get the facts, they'll research in detail themselves. Also, with Dylan's new video posted a few days ago with the flashes going off in wtc7, there were workers all over the place that can be heard, plus another video with firefighters actually saying they were being pulled out of the area. There are video's with them in the area, which means they could be pulled out of the area. Sheshh. but again, I'm not going to argue haha I can't help it though and yes I do believe it was demo'd !

Hey, there are good arguments for both sides of this.

Really.

But what matters is that WTC7 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, not whether or not Silverstein was or was not responsible for giving a command to initiate collapse [i.e., a controlled demolition indicates preplanning and weeks to setup, and therefore complicity & coverup...GAME OVER].

Why do I bring this up? Because the best and only response on this (and all other ancillary points that do not rise to the level of HARD FACTS) should be, "I don't know if he meant "pull" the firefighting team or "pull" the building down (I have my opinion), BUT I DO KNOW IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!

The monumental task is to convince America in the court of public opinion on the facts of 9/11, not on ancillary items such as the Silverstein comment.

There are MANY ancillary points about 9/11, but as far as convincing someone about the truth of 9/11, they are mostly a waste of time. They are good for formulation of your own thinking, but they are not on the same level as HARD FACTS IN A MASS MURDER CASE.

Personally, I have my own idea on his statement, but it is my OPINION...

THEREFORE, getting the truth about 9/11 across to the people of America must be done with the FACTS.

Otherwise, they're simply not going to listen.
(Shoot, lots of them don't even listen when they DO hear the facts.)

Moral of the Story: Don't waste your energies—go for the jugular.

Ask people if they can explain why WTC7 collapsed. They will probably tell you they don't know what you are talking about. Then ask them how many skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11. They will probably tell you 2. Then tell them they are wrong, and ask them why they don't know about WTC7.

Ask them why there were pieces of UAL 93 scattered over at least 8 miles if it crashed as a result of religious Zealots power diving it into a strip mine.

Then ask them how a guy who couldn't pass a flight test in a Cessna 127 in mid August of 2001, and who had never flown a jumbo jet barnstormed the Pentagon at 560 mph, hitting the first floor without touching the grass.

Hold off on the Mohammed Atta CIA heroin smuggling operation at Huffman Aviation until they wake up to the first part.

Right on the money "quicknthedead", good points all around.

I hate to be a nag, but this Silverstein quote is getting to be my pet peave. Please add the word "then" to the quote so that it is correct. " . . .they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

It is the OCT's who edited out the word in the first place.

here
they seem to use it here

I think 7 was pulled to destroy important evidence that was inside wtc 7

Yes, all the major SEC investigations.

Same thing with the Pentagon, except there they were just beginning to investigate the loss of a reported 2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS lost in military procurements (per Donald Rumsfeld).

They had that investigation going on in the building just about where the plane hit, and now the data is gone.

Coincidence?

Again?
[How convenient.]

Just curious. Is there any evidence that (1) any investigation took place at all, (2) that an investigation took place in the damaged/destroyed part of the Pentagon.

Sure. I just now googled:

["2.3 trillion" "donald rumsfeld"]

and got this CBS item dated 9/10/2001:

http://benfrank.net/patriots/news/national...ssing_trillions

Feel free to investigate further.

I know that link, but this doesn't answer my questions though.

From what I ran across last week (I don't have a link so you'll have to believe me or else research it yourself), was that nothing was investigated because 9/11 caused the loss of the records.

makes you wonder if he ha a hard time collecting his insurance claims on the trade center buildings?

I see a few references to "the gold" in this discussion ... are you talking about the alleged US$167 billion in gold that was (according to LC) stored underneath the WTC?

I think "pull it" means to pull it... pull the building. Why hasnt spillthebeans ever tried to clear up what he said? or has he? He might spill a bit more if he talks? :o

a lot more then pulling was done to bring it all down.