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: 45430
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
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-421) not displayed.
.
.
.
#422. To: BeAChooser, Kamala, Ricky J, Diana, Christine, TommyTheMadArtist, Robin, Skydrifter, ALL (#412)
(Edited)
(My reply to BAC) If debris and fire compromising the integrity of Buildings 1, 2, and 7 were the cause of their failure - WHY didn't Building 3 collapse to the ground??? Consider the layout of the TC Complex... Building 3 is closest in proximity to the Towers; and apparently suffered a heavy pounding of debris on top of it - ie a helluva lot of weight came crashing down on it. Considering it's relatively small size compared to the Towers, I'm sure the structural supports were also comparably smaller, and therefore NOT designed to take this kind of weight... YET in spite of very obvious structural damage, it somehow managed NOT to collapse completely to the ground: If 3 could handle this and not collapse, where is the logic that 1 and 2 WOULD collapse completely to the ground? Now go back and look at the layout again. Building 6 lies directly in line between Buildings 1 and 7. If there was sufficient "debris damage" to building 7 to cause complete failure, HOW did this debris MISS Building 6 to a great enough extent as for it to maintain enough integrity NOT to collapse??? Evidently, there was indeed quite a bit of debris damage to building 6 (the building furthest from us in this photo - the closer is 5): Let's look at some of the "serious questions". Shall I go on? If ANY part of an "official story" is found to be fraudulent, then how can one be expected to believe it? When someone begins telling you lies, it makes you have to question everything they say. Your attempts to show the building collapses as happening exactly as the "official story" underline an attempt to discredit the whole "truth movement". The bottom line is the "official story" of 9/11 is Swiss Cheese, and the facts surrounding the collapses are only a tiny bit of the overall picture. Your attempts at making the "official story" credible by validation of the collapses are nothing more than the attempts of a shill to fracture the "truth movement". The likes of you are what I (and many others) consider to be traitors to this country - every bit as much as the ones currently holding office. When shit turns turtle in this country, I suggest you don't stick around.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
9/11 Truth: The Complete Media Blackout of the WTC7 Collapse The Incredibly Strange Collapse of WTC Building 7 How Did They Know Building 7 Was Going to Collapse? 9/11 Truth: What Happened to WTC Building 7 9/11 Truth: Structural Failures vs. Controlled Demolitions 9/11 Truth: FEMA & NIST's "Pancake Theory" is a Lie 9/11: Does this look like "structural failure" to you? Evidence Showing US Government Complicity in the 911 Attack 9/11 Truth: Even More Video Proof of Controlled Demolitions 9/11 Truth: Steven Jones on WTC 7 and Controlled Demolition 9/11: Rudy Giuliani & the Feds Destroyed the WTC Evidence Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush But Ricky, what you fail to realize is that I'm not arguing whether 9/11 was or was not an inside job. I'm simply pointing out that you won't find the truth about 9/11 by starting with a foundation of lies. It makes you too easy to discredit.
ROTFLOL! When have you ever done that, Tommy? Asked me that question? But since you've asked now (even though you didn't even ping me), let's examine that question. We can start out with what you say: Guess you weren't paying attention to the video shown of Jowenko (the SOLE demolition expert in the world supporting the WTC7 was bombed theory) answering that exact question. Wake up, Tommy! And you know what he said. The building could have been prepped by 30 or 40 (or was it 50) guys in the few hours after the collapse of the WTC towers before WTC7 collapsed. Of course, Jowenko looked a little like a dear caught in the headlights when they told him the building was on fire that whole time. ROTFLOL!
Actually you had quite a bit to say about WTC 1 and WTC 2 in the following thread: http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45537&Disp=All&#C205 ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL!
For starters I've posted that question to you on another thread and you disappeared. Perhaps you were off the clock or something. Second, after losing half the fire department, do you really think for a minute that 50 guys, inside a burning building would actually be able to set it up in a few hours? Apparently you must have been drinking the koolaid a little too long, because cutting easements is extremely dangerous work, and to minimize the risk to large numbers of people, are usually done in 4 man teams. I seriously doubt that it was done in a few hours. It simply cannot be done with that amount of people on such short notice. Procedure would have mandated that the fires be out, and structure assessed, then plans drawn up, and of course the eventual demolition. EVEN IN LIGHT OF THE EVENT OF THAT DAY. You have got to be retarded to think that after the massive loss of life, that they would send upwards of 50 guys to go work in a burning building to set it up for demolition if it were empty. ESPECIALLY, if fires already brought down two HUGE FIRE RESISTANT BUILDINGS FAR MORE STRUCTURALLY SOUND THAN ANYTHING BUILT BEFORE.
(BAC to Innieway)
You will not find the truth on a foundation of lies and misinformation. If you can't even get past the silly and unnecessary notion of bombs in the towers and no Flight 77, there really is no point in discussing any serious question about 9/11 with you. Indeed, the pursuit of nonsense is making it impossible to get answers to the serious questions.
I don't believe I've ever said anything about "bombs in the towers", or that there was "no Flight 77". I DO maintain that there is something seriously wrong with the "official explanation". It's NOT getting answers to the "serious questions" that puts one in the position of feeling something is seriously wrong with the "official explanation" - including the collapses and the Pentagon. 
(1) What's behind the obvious "stand down" of NORAD?
(2) Why didn't the Secret Service IMMEDIATELY whisk the President away upon learning of an "attack" upon America? His location was no secret.
(3) Why did Condi lie to the 9/11 Commission with the statement (not an exact quote, but close enough to get the gist of it) "No one ever considered an attack like this using planes and targeting those buildings" - when in FACT, NORAD had conducted exercises specifically with such an attack in mind?
(4) What about the "prophetic" insight of PNAC in calling 1 year before the attacks for the need of "A new Pearl Harbor" in order to rapidly facilitate the "process of transformation" which they called for?
(5) Why did the Administration originally oppose setting up the 9/11 Commission?
(6) Why have the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission come out and publicly stated it was flawed? Their comments:
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."
(7) Why were so many fore warnings ignored?
(8) What about the put options placed on United Airlines?
(9) What role does Dov Zhakeim (Comptroller of the Pentagon at the time of the attacks) play in this? Remember, the forte of his company (Systems Planning Corporation) is designing, building, installing, and maintaining remote control systems for large aircraft.
(10) Why did the 9/11 Commission receive a tiny amount of funding compared to the Monica/Clinton investigation?
#423. To: innieway (#422)
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46158
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46251
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46138
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46113
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46292
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46157
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46094
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46090
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46093
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46290&Disp
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46156
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#424. To: RickyJ, ALL (#420)
BAC, what you fail to realize is around here the debate about whether 9/11 was an inside job has been settled since this forum started in 2005.
#425. To: TommyTheMadArtist, RickyJ, ALL (#421)
All you have to do, to stop arguing with BAC, is ask him point blank this question.
If you were a guy who owned a building just like Building 7 at the World Trade Center, and needed to have it demolished, how long would it take a demolitions expert to set up the charges on a building that size for a safe and expedient demolition?
Ask him that question, and he runs away like a little girl.
In fact, ask ANYONE that question and they won't tell you a fucking thing. Because it takes a couple weeks possibly a month or two to design the demolitions, cut easements into the super structure, and then of course, place the charges and riggings. The ONLY way they could have demolished Building 7, is if it were a planned event, END OF STORY.
#426. To: innieway, ALL (#422)
I don't believe I've ever said anything about "bombs in the towers"
The likes of you are what I (and many others) consider to be traitors to this country - every bit as much as the ones currently holding office. When shit turns turtle in this country, I suggest you don't stick around.
#427. To: BeAChooser (#425)
(Edited)
 | This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#428. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#427)
Tommy, you don't seem to understand. I'm only quoting what the demolition expert your side has been quoting to supposedly prove WTC7 was a demolition said. Nothing more. Aren't you even aware of what he said? Or do you think he's a KOOK and you're smarter than him? Then take it up with your side's demolition expert. ROTFLOL! I see. So you are saying Mr Jowenko is retarded. May I quote you next time one of your FD4UM friends mentions him?
Second, after losing half the fire department, do you really think for a minute that 50 guys, inside a burning building would actually be able to set it up in a few hours?
I seriously doubt that it was done in a few hours.
You have got to be retarded to think that after the massive loss of life, that they would send upwards of 50 guys to go work in a burning building to set it up for demolition if it were empty.
#429. To: BeAChooser (#428)
Mr. Jowenko is indeed a retard. There is no fucking way ANYONE would send a team of 50 guys to hurriedly demolish a building. ESPECIALLY when an event like 9-11 happened. The building was stable enough to send 50 guys into to demolish, it was surely stable enough to let stand for a month or so needed to properly demolish it. There would be no way for 50 guys to properly communicate between each other to know what each and every team member was doing. If one cuts the wrong structural support, they could have brought the building down on the other members of the team. This is why small teams are brought in to do ANY kind of demolition work. You can indeed quote me, because there's a lot of obfuscation on his part, and the parts of people posting the demolition theory in general. A building of any size and consequence takes time to demolish. You don't assemble a crack demolition team to take down a building that size in a matter of hours, ESPECIALLY when there's plenty of material inside that is valuable. Think about how much salvageable hardware was inside that place. I firmly believe that if it was a controlled demolition, that it was set up weeks in advance. That is the only, and I MEAN ONLY way it could have been a controlled demolition. I'm not taking any side here BAC, I'm asking viable questions, and posing HONEST answers to them. This is the problem with the 9-11 conspiracy threads and such, is that people are not thinking clearly, nor are they asking the right questions when it comes right down to it. You claim to be objective, and I've seen some of your objective posts, they are thought out, and very intelligent. I'm sure that if you were to take your objective intelligence, and point it to this topic in a way that was unbiased, you would realize that ANY circumstances such as a burning building, would have negated a team being sent in to demolish it, because a compromised structure in some ways is HARDER to demolish than one that isn't. Larry Silverstein said that the building was demolished by the Fire Department. I was unaware that the FDNY did that as a sideline, because demolitions fall under a different kind of bonding and contracting union than Fire Fighting. Legality alone stops the fire department from demolition work. So, with that said, you can quote me all you like, but bear in mind that I do indeed believe it was a controlled demolition, but one that was set up in advance of 9-11. You simply cannot bring down a building that size in a matter of hours. It takes weeks to cut easements in a building of that size. It takes weeks of structural planning to ensure that the contracting company that is doing the demolition gets it right. A building was demolished here in the Twin Cities, and it took 3 months to get permits, plans, and teams inside to do their job, and they had to take their time otherwise a lot of people, and other buildings would have been destroyed if they'd been sloppy. So, take my post for what it is.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#430. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#429)
Please post a link to this quote.
Larry Silverstein said that the building was demolished by the Fire Department.
#431. To: robin, TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#429)
Ping to #439, robin. Any comments? ROTFLOL!
Mr. Jowenko is indeed a retard.
#432. To: robin, ALL (#423)
Various rebuttals of demolition theory: http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm http://www.jod911.com/evidence.pdf http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
#433. To: BeAChooser (#431)
You'll have to wade through all of the hours of footage on Fox News. I was watching it happen that morning, and they interviewed Mr. Silverstein that morning, and he in fact did say it was demolished by the fire department. You have Google, I'm sure you can find the link yourself, this way you know I'm not using a biased source, unlike your debunking 9-11 post to me on the other thread.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#434. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#433)
So, in other words, you have no proof he said that. I figured that was the case.
You'll have to wade through all of the hours of footage on Fox News.
#435. To: BeAChooser (#434)
No, you're just too fucking lazy to search for the truth yourself. If you were truly objective, you'd look for it yourself instead of being lazy.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#436. To: BeAChooser (#434)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html One link, let me find some "legitimate" sources for you.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#437. To: BeAChooser (#434)
You have proven yourself to be such a liar and a fool that it's not even fun wagering on you for sport any longer. But since when has that mattered?
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering ****.
#438. To: BeAChooser (#434)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329 Yet another, this time, you can actually hear the man say it. http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html Another link for you to digest.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#439. To: BeAChooser (#438)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html Another... So, how many links are you going to need? Seriously, I can do this all night.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#440. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#435)
Ground Zero EMT: We Were Told Building 7 Was to Be "Pulled"
"A New Jersey EMT has gone public on how emergency workers were told that Building 7 was going to be "pulled," before a 20 second demolition countdown broadcast over radio preceded its collapse. ...In his enthralling testimony, the EMT goes into graphic detail of how he and others personally witnessed a plethora of explosions at all points of the buildings before their collapse."
Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation
Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”
#441. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#436)
That link doesn't quote Silverstein saying "the building was demolished by the Fire Department." TRY AGAIN.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html
One link
#442. To: Uncle Bill, beachooser (#440)
Thanks. I'm sure Beachooser will find the link informative.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#443. To: BeAChooser (#441)
There's a link out there that says the FDNY did it, from Larry. HOWEVER... You don't refute that it was demolished right?
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#444. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#438)
No, he does NOT say "the building was demolished by the Fire Department." You will not find the truth on a foundation of misinformation, Tommy.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
Yet another, this time, you can actually hear the man say it.
#445. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#439)
No, another where he does NOT say "the building was demolished by the Fire Department." You misquoted him Tommy. Why is that necessary if your case is so strong? So can I, Tommy.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html
Another...
Seriously, I can do this all night.
#446. To: BeAChooser (#444)
Speaking of denial and misinformation... Was the building demolished? Silverstein says in fact it was. He was on record on 3 accounts in interviews, one of which he does indeed say the Fire Department was responsible. In another account, he mentions the fire department but does not say they did it. I'm still looking for the fire department one for you. So, was it a demolition or not BAC? ANSWER THE QUESTION.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#447. To: BeAChooser (#445)
So can I, Tommy. Well apparently you can't answer a question. Was it a controlled demolition if Larry Silverstein says it was?
Seriously, I can do this all night.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#448. To: Uncle Bill, TommyTheMadArtist, All (#440)
From your source: "In a letter to Loose Change producer Dylan Avery, the individual who wishes to remain anonymous" ... snip ... Ok, fess up guys ... One of you wrote the letter... ROTFLOL!
#449. To: BeAChooser (#448)
I see you can't answer a simple question can you? Yes or no? If Larry Silverstein says that WTC was a controlled demolition, then was it? Yes or no BAC. Show us how intellectually honest you are.
As Americans tolerate liars, thieves, and traitors to govern them, they get exactly the government they deserve. If the American People were truly interested in having a representational republic, and had the desire for justice and good governance, they would have impeached, incarcerated, and imprisoned every elected official in office on September 12th, 2001. However, they should have done it in 1913, before World War I, that way, the treason wouldn't have become such a cancer as to become inoperable.
#450. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#446)
No, Tommy, Silverstein is neither quoted or heard saying that the "building was demolished" in any of the links you've provided. Not one. No, Tommy, he does NOT say "the Fire Department was responsible" ... certainly not for demolishing the building. You are just making things up. Is your case that WTC7 was demolished so weak that you have to make up false quotes?
Speaking of denial and misinformation... Was the building demolished? Silverstein says in fact it was.
He was on record on 3 accounts in interviews, one of which he does indeed say the Fire Department was responsible.
#451. To: BeAChooser (#450)
Sorry, I'm not making ANYTHING up.
As Americans tolerate liars, thieves, and traitors to govern them, they get exactly the government they deserve. If the American People were truly interested in having a representational republic, and had the desire for justice and good governance, they would have impeached, incarcerated, and imprisoned every elected official in office on September 12th, 2001. However, they should have done it in 1913, before World War I, that way, the treason wouldn't have become such a cancer as to become inoperable.
#452. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#447)
Silverstein did NOT say "it was a controlled demolition"? You are just making things up, Tommy. Why is that necessary if your evidence is so strong?
Was it a controlled demolition if Larry Silverstein says it was?
#453. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#449)
Except he didn't, did he. Try to be "intellectually honest" about that, Tommy.
If Larry Silverstein says that WTC was a controlled demolition,
#454. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#449)
You won't be able to build anything better, Tommy, if your foundation consists of misinformation.
As Americans tolerate liars, thieves, and traitors to govern them, they get exactly the government they deserve.
#455. To: BeAChooser (#453)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html As loathe as I am to go there... Look at the page in question, scroll down til you see the picture of Silverstein. I think there's a video you can download. I saw the PBS documentary and have a copy of it myself. If I had a way to host the video, I'd post it. He says point blank that it was a demolition. He states that it was a decision made by him, and the fire department. Perhaps I am construing responsibility towards the fire department, but it has been admitted it was a controlled demolition just the same, by Larry Silverstein himself. So, with that said, answer the question. If Larry Silverstein says it was a controlled demolition of building 7, is it?
As Americans tolerate liars, thieves, and traitors to govern them, they get exactly the government they deserve. If the American People were truly interested in having a representational republic, and had the desire for justice and good governance, they would have impeached, incarcerated, and imprisoned every elected official in office on September 12th, 2001. However, they should have done it in 1913, before World War I, that way, the treason wouldn't have become such a cancer as to become inoperable.
#456. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#451)
Then link us to a QUOTE where Silverstein says the building was brought down by a "controlled demolition". That is what you claimed Silverstein said.
Sorry, I'm not making ANYTHING up.
#457. To: BeAChooser (#453)
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering ****.
#458. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#455)
No he does not. You are making things up, Tommy.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
As loathe as I am to go there... Look at the page in question, scroll down til you see the picture of Silverstein. I think there's a video you can download. I saw the PBS documentary and have a copy of it myself. If I had a way to host the video, I'd post it. He says point blank that it was a demolition.
#459. To: BeAChooser (#458) (Edited)
As a habitual liar I guess you lose in the court of public opinion. Since we seem to be unable to reach a factual consensus and all... You have three minutes until I unleash the mangy basset hounds! Two!
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering ****.
#460. To: Dakmar (#457)
looking carefully at your lips
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
#461. To: innieway (#422)
On your first graphic it says around 5PM WTC7 collapses. Where do you get this time?
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
.
.
.
Comments (462 - 467) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest