[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Joe Rogan expressed deep concern that Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Zelensky will start World War III

Fury in Memphis after attempted murder suspect who ambushed FedEx employee walks free without bail

Tehran preparing for attack against Israel: Ayatollah Khamenei's aide

Huge shortage plagues Israeli army as losses mount in Lebanon, Gaza

Researchers Find Unknown Chemical In Drinking Water Posing "Potential Human Health Concern"

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

The Problem of the Bitcoin Billionaires

Biden: “We’re leaving America in a better place today than when we came into office four years ago … "

Candace Owens: Gaetz out, Bondi in. There's more to this than you think.

OMG!!! Could Jill Biden Be Any MORE Embarrassing??? - Anyone NOTICE This???

Sudden death COVID vaccine paper published, then censored, by The Lancet now republished with peer review

Russian children returned from Syria


9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It" Explanation Examined
Source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein_pullit.html
URL Source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein_pullit.html
Published: Feb 10, 2007
Author: M Rivero
Post Date: 2007-02-10 20:28:49 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11*     Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 45703
Comments: 467

WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It" Explanation Examined

On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. ...

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

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building. [US Department of State]

There is a problem with the above statement, namely there were no firefighters in WTC 7:

"No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report]

"There was no firefighting in WTC 7." [Popular Mechanics]

"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons." [New York Times] Let's have a look at Silverstein's full statement:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." WMV video download (490kB)

In summary, the fire department commander said the fire could not be contained, Silverstein said "the smartest thing to do is pull it", and the fire department made the decision to pull.

"Pull" is a term used in building demolition...

"We're getting ready to pull Building 6" ... "We had to be very careful how we demolished Building 6..." WMV video download (564kB)

...but the US Department of State contends that Silverstein's "pull it" statement refers to withdrawing firefighters from WTC 7. If this was the case then firefighters should have received a message which said something like "World Trade 7 is unsafe. Abandon the building and withdraw from the area."

Okay, let's have a look at the language used by firefighters withdrawing from the area of WTC 7:

"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..." WMV video download (1 MB)

The above indicates the message received by the firefighters was "We are going to demolish 7 World Trade. Clear the area."

INDRA SINGH EMT: "...by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."

HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"

SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility..." [Prison Planet]

It has also been stated that a 20 second radio countdown preceded the collapse of WTC 7.

The statement by Silverstein Properties and the US Department of State also contends there were no deaths in WTC 7 because "pull it" was an evacuation order. This is factually incorrect:

Speakers for voice evacuation announcements were located throughout the building and were activated manually at the Fire Control Center (FCC) [WTC 7 Report] It would be impossible to miss an evacuation order.

"...I'm on top of building 7 just pulling out rubbish. Pulled out a Port Authority cop at about 11 o'clock in the morning..." WMV video download (597kB)

"When 7 World Trade Center came down on Sept. 11, an agent on loan from Washington, special officer Craig Miller, perished..." [PDF download (link expired)] "The Secret Service New York Field Office was located in 7 World Trade Center ... Master Special Officer Craig Miller, died during the rescue efforts." [PDF download]

The death of Master Special Officer Craig Miller is another inconsistency in the official explanation of Silverstein's "pull it" comment.

Why aren't the numerous inconsistencies questioned by the mainstream media?


See also:

Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition The 9/11 WTC Collapses: An Audio-Video Analysis


What Really Happened

Email This Page To A Friend Subscribe to *9-11*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 101.

#1. To: Kamala, ALL (#0)

There is a problem with the above statement, namely there were no firefighters in WTC 7:

Here are the statements of firefighters who were there:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt " "They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski"

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department"

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers"

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Ryan_William.txt "Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan"

***********

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned."

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

******************

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.

************

http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html "WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02] Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02] Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11."

************

Furthermore, according to

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

"Daniel Nigro said there were RESCUE OPERATIONS that were ongoing. He also says it was HE and not Silverstein who ordered the firemen out. "I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. - Chief Nigro"

***********

So the claim that firefighters weren't in danger if WTC7 collapsed or that they weren't "pulled" out is simply false. Either that or all the above firemen are liars.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-10   22:47:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: BeAChooser (#1)

Instead of relying on mainstream media and the doubtful testimony of the men who covered up the crime of the century by pulling the building you can go to http://www.WTC7.net and see Tower 7 collapse from 3 different angles. All 3 videos show Tower 7 collapsing in 6.5 seconds. None of the three videos show damage sufficient for a collapse of the steel girders. Soon after 911 a 24 story steel girdered skyscraper in Madrd burned for 36 hours without collapsing.

Horse  posted on  2007-02-11   11:48:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Horse, ALL (#9)

Instead of relying on mainstream media and the doubtful testimony of the men who covered up the crime of the century by pulling the building you can go to http://www.WTC7.net and see Tower 7 collapse from 3 different angles.

But not from the South Side where a huge hole in the structure was located. It was obscured by smoke from big fires.

Soon after 911 a 24 story steel girdered skyscraper in Madrd burned for 36 hours without collapsing.

The Windsor Tower in Madrid was NOT a 24 story steel skyscraper. The core was reinforced concrete and from the 17th floor on down the frame supporting the floors was primarily reinforced concrete. And all the portions of the tower that did depend solely on a steel frame did in fact collapse.

The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie

But you will not find the truth if you start your investigation with a foundation of "facts" that aren't facts.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-11   18:09:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#36)

6.5 seconds, with the elevator motor cab starting the collapse.

How utterly convenient.

BAC, you're returned to your usual slimy bullshit - as though you know anything else.

"Get back BeOcho!"

SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-02-11   18:16:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: SKYDRIFTER, agaviator, beachooser, christine, all, zipporah, kamala, angle, burkeman1, ferret mike, jethro tull, skydrifter (#37) (Edited)

Let's stop discussing things that happened over 5 years ago..blah blah

As far as I'm concerned, 911 whodunits are quite a waste of time. The events happened nearly 5 1/2 years ago, you can make a case there are certain elements who welcomed them, and instead of stopping the insanity that has resulted from it, there is this endless speculation bordering on obsession...

Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala

AGAviator posted on 2007-02-11 18:29:20 ET

Physics, engineering and aviation [our specialty] aside, I wonder how TheStateInc 9-11 believers account for the mathematical statistical improbability..no, impossibility.. of 3 buildings, on fire, all with different damage profiles, all collapsing STRAIGHT DOWN, when they were designed to withstand such damage, and when none ever have before in history. Talk about winning the Progressive Jackpot. We need to take these believers to Vegas and see if some of that good Mojo rubs off on us!

AGAviator: Me too, me too!!! Bozo me!! While you're at it, since these events happened so long ago, let's stop discussing history altogether. It's all irrelevant according to you. You've demonstrated your lack of intellect. And that is as politely as I can state it.

IndieTX  posted on  2007-02-11   18:46:20 ET  (1 image) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: IndieTX (#40) (Edited)

Physics, engineering and aviation [our specialty] aside, I wonder how TheStateInc 9-11 believers account for the mathematical statistical improbability..no, impossibility.. of 3 buildings, on fire, all with different damage profiles, all collapsing STRAIGHT DOWN,

Gravity.

When they were designed to withstand such damage, and when none ever have before in history
They were designed to fall sideways?
Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala

AGAviator  posted on  2007-02-11   19:48:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: AGAviator, IndieTX, Kamala (#42)

They were designed to fall sideways?

Why would the top 20 or 30 floors fall straight down to begin with? If the building collapsed due to weakened steel, do you seriously think all four corners of the top of the building would have fallen at the same exact time, and at the same rate of collapse, considering there were 80 to 90 stories of undamaged steel and concrete that it had to crash through?

If the collapse happened as the official story describes, where the steel was weakened by fire, then the top of the building would have tipped, and would have either come to a rest at an angle, or slid off of the undamaged section of the building.

Additionally, even if the floors pancaked as described by the official story, the building would not have collapsed at the same rate as if it were falling through thin air, but would have taken at least 96 seconds to collapse, as per Dr. Judy Wood, a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University.

A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory

One must also take into consideration that the building turned to dust as it fell, so the available energy to break floors below was diminshed by the pulverization of the concrete and steel. Thus, the floors should not have pancaked, as there was not enough energy left over.

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-02-11   20:21:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: FormerLurker (#46)

Thats correct. If you look at the videos and photos, NIST wants us to believe that the building and gravity crushed itself.

To this day, NIST does not explain the mechanics of the collapse.

So lets take WTC 1. We are supposed to believe that 14 floors crushed the entire tower? If you look at the videos, as the building explodes, there is nothing above it but concrete dust.

The debris is being ejected out and away from the tower. The steel and dust is outside the tower itself.

What is crushing the tower? Air?

The real kicker is, as the debris is falling, the tower explosions/collapse almost keep pace with debris falling through the air.

Now, I don't subscribe to the 9 sec collapse trap. It took both towers around 15 seconds total. That still is WAY too fast for a "progressive gravity collapse".

I think the average time of collapse per floor was around 1/5-1/6 of a second for the towers and 1/8 of a second for WTC 7.

Kamala  posted on  2007-02-11   20:51:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Kamala (#48)

What is crushing the tower? Air?

According to BAC's experts, I guess so.

Now, I don't subscribe to the 9 sec collapse trap. It took both towers around 15 seconds total. That still is WAY too fast for a "progressive gravity collapse".

The 9 to 11 second figures are what NIST and the 9/11 Commission stated, and correspond to the seismographal evidence, but you're right, an extra six seconds doesn't account for the breaking of 90 or so solid undamaged stories of concrete and steel.

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-02-11   21:06:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: FormerLurker, critter, *9-11* (#50)

Does BAC ever read anythng? Its all CCP. Links and long paragraphs of nothing. It like throwing a giant glob at the wall, hoping some will stick.

Kamala  posted on  2007-02-12   6:38:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Kamala, Christine, Aristeides, Honway, Robin, Diana, All (#85)

So far, BAC is obviously hiding from me. That's unusual for even his magnitude of cowardice. BUT, not particularly surprising.

"Get Back, BeOcho; go home."

I think he wants his gal Goldi to feel sorry for him & invite him back (BAC?)



SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-02-12   10:10:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: SKYDRIFTER (#89)

BAC is supposed to be the new site kook for people to beat on.

Buckeroo pissed off Christine and Ponchy was too nasty.

BAC is an obsessed nut that is sober most of the time (I think). And he's just enough of a sociopath that he doesn't catch on to what people think of him and his ideas. Hence, he won't run off like a normal person would.

Minerva  posted on  2007-02-12   10:17:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Aristeides, Honway, Robin, Diana, All (#92)

BAC is almost a source of entertainment.

At least we get the disinformationist viewpoint. In that fashion, BAC did a really good job of constructively editing my 9-11 Web site. There's supposed to be another 9-11 book coming out, relying in part on my observations. I won't know for certain, until it hits the store shelves, however.

I do owe BAC, in that respect. Otherwise, he's so much brown and smelly slime.


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-02-12   10:32:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: SKYDRIFTER (#95)

Let's not forget this part:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

Published on Tuesday, February 4, 2003 by the Prince George's Journal (Maryland)

Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United by Margie Burns

George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.

...its bids for contracts are noncompetitive - and also did security work for the Los Alamos laboratory before 1998.

Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. But the White House has not publicly disclosed Bush connections in any of its responses to 9/11, nor has it mentioned that another Bush-linked business had done security work for the facilities attacked.

angle  posted on  2007-02-12   10:37:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: All (#96)

http://www.betterbadnews.dreamhosters.com/2006/04/

Sudden Building Collapse Syndrome (SBCS) is not well understood. Perhaps that is why the 9/11 Commission Report made no mention of the sudden collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 late in the day on September 11, 2001.

The 9/11 Commission Report didn’t include any information about the President’s brother, Marvin Bush either. Marvin Bush was a principal owner of the security firm, Securecom, aka Statesec, the company that held the contract to provide security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport on Sept 11th, 2001.

But with the new popularity of online video the public is beginning to discover video tape evidence showing that the collapse of Building 7 occurs at free fall speed identical to what happens in a controlled demolition.

In a controlled demolition explosive charges are used to liquify weight bearing joints causing the walls to collapse directly into a building’s footprint with no resistance at free fall speed.

Which may explain why traditional media outlets have never allowed the public to see video clips of Building 7 as it collapsed. No airplane hit building 7 yet it collapses at free fall speed as did the twin towers earlier that same day.

But the work required to wire a 47 story building for a controlled demolition would have had to begin some time before Sept 11, 2001 and that points to Marvin Bush’s security company. Was Marvin Bush sleeping on the job or very much awake?

Or did Building 7 commit suicide in an act of solidarity with the other two buildings?

angle  posted on  2007-02-12   10:45:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: All (#98)

9/11 Memorial Service

angle  posted on  2007-02-12   10:46:40 ET  (1 image) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: angle (#99) (Edited)

what's with the smiles on the faces of ma and pa there?

christine  posted on  2007-02-12   11:01:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 101.

#103. To: christine (#101)

what's with the smiles on the faces of ma and pa there?

Mission Accomplished, darlin'.

angle  posted on  2007-02-12 11:06:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: christine (#101)

what's with the smiles on the faces of ma and pa there?

Junior's now a made member of the Family...

Eoghan  posted on  2007-02-12 11:31:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 101.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]