WTC7: what "pull-it" meant

There was a thread yesterday that linked to an article that I cannot now find. I think the thread was in GD, but I would assume it was moved here. I'm sure some of you saw it, or know what I'm speaking of.

In the article, the author said that he was at ground zero on 9/11, and that he was near WTC7 and that he spoke with a firefighters who was drinking a bottle of Poland water, and the firefighter told this guy that WTC7 was coming down. The author asked him "when" and the reply was "later today or tomorrow".

Now, if this is true, doesn't this support the interpretation of "pull it" as meaning demolition? How did this firefighter know that the building would collapse? Was it that structurally compromised, that it was obvious?

I think this statement should be verified if possible, and then added to the discussion when the Silverstein quote comes up.

If anyone still has a link to that thread or the article, I'd appreciate it.

writer who wrote the generally favorable 9/11 truth article that came out this week, here:

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index.html

I never really put much stock into the Silverstein comment -- I thought it was ambiguous -- until I read that article.

That's the article. I'll bookmark it this time...

The Silverstein "pull it" quote is ambiquous, perhaps -- but more importantly, it is out of context.

Will we ever get an opportunity for Silverstein to be asked further questions about anything he said or did regarding that day, under oath? Chances are slim.

We know that quote from a 2002 PBS documentary. It's one short passage that survived editing, survived the odds of having a person with a mic in the right place at the right time to hear it Silverstein tell his memories in that way.

We do not, as far as I'm aware (and please, correct me if I'm mistaken), know what words Silverstein had exchanged with fire department officials previous to that, that would place it in better context. We do not know who the "fire department commander" he spoke with was, let alone have that person testifying under oath. We don't know who was with the PBS crew who shot the segment, what happened to the footage that didn't make it into the film, what there is that might help us get a beter handle on the truth here.

My personal opinion is that WTC7 was deliberately demolished, and that it's one of the keys to solving this puzzle. But I think that Silverstein's "pull it" statement needs a lot more background exposed that we haven't begun to touch yet.

Do citizens, even if they hold the lease on a property, have the right to tell firefighters whether to save a structure or not? I mean, OK, if it's in the middle of nowhere, but in New York city? You'd think there would be regulations on how firefighters behave, and I doubt that someone telling them to just never mind about putting this fire out would really work.

"Eh... let it burn. I have insurance. Never liked it much anyway."

that, at best, he was over-stating his importance. You're right, I don't think it should or would have been his decision.

It is not unreasonable that the CEO of the company that owned a building worth hundreds of millions of dollars would have at the very least been consulted concerning decisions being made that would have a direct impact on the property.

In the PBS show where the infamous "pull it" quote originated, he clearly said that "they made that decision". I believe that means, according to him, he did not make the decision.

- Make7

Even so, first, he was the lease holder I thought, not the owner (?), and secondly, how can even a small group make a decision like that for the other tenants of the building, and the surrounding buildings that *might* (should have) been damaged if they left it to burn or whatever. In other words, it's not the sort of decision I can envision in any case.

Also, how come there's such a direct connection between "deciding to pull it" and the building falling down? In many (all?) cases where this sort of comment is made, it's immediately followed by "and then the building came down" -- not, "we made the decision to pull it (the firefighters out) and then they went home" or "and then they went to help with the other mess"? The "pull-it" is followed up with another comment that refers to the same "it".

It doesn't make sense.

http://sirdave.com/mp3/PullIt.mp3

"...they made that decision..."




The decision being discussed was concerning the Fire Department's effort to contain the fires in the building. If the FDNY doesn't think it can contain a fire and believes it is not safe for the firefighters to continue to fight it, do you really think they need to seek permission to safeguard their crews? Someone needs to make that decision, and it rests with the Fire Department to make it.

After hundreds of firefighters had already lost their lives that day, do you really feel that the FDNY was concerned about potential damage to property? After the two tallest buildings in the city had already collapsed causing unprecedented damage to property for New York City? Do you not think the firefighters were more concerned with trying to find any survivors trapped by the collapse of Twin Towers as soon as possible than with anything else? I think the priorities affecting the decision concerning WTC7 might have been slightly altered by the circumstances of that day.



What time did the conversation take place between Mr. Silverstein and the Fire Department Commander?

- Make7

in particular about the special circumstances that day that would have influenced these sorts of decisions.

I just don't understand how so many people knew in advance that the building would come down. Was there anything (I mean, besides WTC1&2) to indicate to them that a fire would topple a building like that? It seems strange that they expected it. And there are numerous witnesses who indicate that it was expected to fall, which would fit with what Silverstein said.

Here's one excerpt from the article I was trying to find:

There were damage assessments that were done that day that indicated "the building's integrity was in serious doubt." (source)


And there are other reports of firemen saying that WTC7 was expected to collapse. I just don't know if trying to link the expectation of a collapse to controlled demolition is really valid.

Why is there such a time window on the statement made by the fireman in the New York Magazine article? "Tonight . . . Maybe tomorrow morning." If they were planning on a controlled demolition, wouldn't they have been able to narrow down the time a little bit?

Your last post seemed to imply that Larry Silverstein said "pull it" and then WTC7 collapsed very shortly thereafter, and now you have a quote from a firefighter that could not even narrow down when the collapse would occur closer than sometime Tuesday night or Wednesday morning. It kinda sounds like they might not have known when it was going to collapse, just that they thought it would if they didn't do anything to stop it.

- Make7

What I meant (and didn't articulate well) when I said that the "pull it" comment was followed by "and then the building collapsed" was about the way the sentence was structured, not that the comment was immediately followed by the actual collapse.

It was about what the "it" in "pull it" was referring to, and since the rest of the sentence talked about the building coming down.



(and yes, you're correct, he did say "they")

But I believe that is exactly what people are doing with Mr. Silverstein's comments. If he did not use the words "pull it", I doubt if anyone would have given what he said a second thought.

The fact of the matter is that Mr. Silverstein said that he was talking to a Fire Department Commander who told him that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I'm not clear why people believe he would tell a FDNY Commander to blow up the building, it makes little sense to me given the context of his comments.

Would you be happier if his last sentence would have been something like the following: "And they made the decision to cease the firefighting operations and as a result the building collapsed."

- Make7

although the wording wouldn't be so formal.

I just watched the beginning of a documentary that was on the History channel about 9/11 and there was a comment that very early in the day, a call was made to evacuate WTC7, but that "to this day" nobody knew who made that call.

Although his wording was not so formal.

I just don't think given the context of his comments and who he was talking to, that he was ordering the demolition of WTC7. Some people obviously interpret it differently. Ultimately everyone decides for themselves what information means to them, I'm just stating my opinion.

Although I would like to add that often times people's views are formed on incomplete or inaccurate information, at the very least one should endeavor to get the basic facts together before coming to any conclusions. Of course, the more complicated the subject, the harder that is to do effectively.


Did they give a more precise time than "very early in the day"? I remember seeing some CameraPlanet footage where a high-rise residential building was being evacuated "early in the day" after the South Tower was hit. I think it is quite likely that many tall buildings were being evacuated as a precaution. For instance, on that day the United Nations building and the Sears Tower were also evacuated.

- Make7

I have not yet viewed the whole 2 hours. It was made in 2002 and was titled "WTC: Rise and Fall of an American Icon" (or something very similar to that).

If the call to evacuate the building was innocent, then why can't they track down the source? You'd think that the minute this accusation comes up, that a mysterious person ordered an evacuation, that *someone* should be able to step up and say "it was me". Maybe that has happened, and that the makers of this documentary just didn't look hard enough. Dunno.

When the North Tower was struck, many people in the South Tower started to evacuate. Many at the urging of the various managers of the numerous companies in the building. Shortly thereafter an announcement was made over the intercom that the problem was in the North Tower and they could return to their work areas because their building was secure. Thankfully many did not pay attention to that announcement. Of course, when the South Tower itself was hit by the second plane, I think many people started to evacuate without waiting for some person of authority to make that call. The truth of the matter is, it is probably not just a single person that made that call. Maybe there was such a person in a position responsible to make it, but in the end was that person's decision solely, or even largely, responsible for the evacuation of the building?

So I think the pertinent question regarding the WTC7 call is when it was made. I think after the South Tower was hit, most people would have decided to evacuate regardless of what anyone was telling them to do. After the first collapse, I doubt if you could have paid most people to stay in that building.

So depending on the time at which this call to evacuate WTC7 was made, it may have some significance - or it might be essentially irrelevant. To speculate without knowing the time is just imparting meaning into something without knowing if it has any.

- Make7

The FDNY could not figure out exactly where the fires were, how big they were or how much water they could get to the fire floors, so "the chiefs concluded that this would be a rescue operation, not a firefighting operation." (9/11 CR, p. 290)
A fire chief told the Commission:
"So we determined very early on, that this was going to be strictly a rescue mission. We were going to vacate the building, get everybody out, and then we were going to get out." p. 291
The same thing happened with 7. I see nothing wrong with this at all.

About 80% of the 15,000 in the Twin Towers were evacuated. Of the 3,000 people who died, about 500 or so were killed by the aircraft impacts and many were trapped on the upper floors. Most of the others were trapped on or above the fire floors.

I don't have a problem with 7 being demolished either - it was empty, nobody died.

that you quote the Commissions report for building 7...the Commissions report doesn't even talk about Building 7. There is no explanation as to why building 7 collapsed other than fallen debris (and and by the way WTC6 got it much worse). It was clearly demolitioned, if the Pentagon is still standing from a 757 (which by the way, it wasnt hit by a plane), then it makes no sense whatsoever that this building just conveniently fell into its own footprint in seconds.

Just admit it, you are a disinformation agent.

I really am not wanting to get into a discussion concerning whether or not WTC7 was a controlled demolition in this thread. If you have some new information concerning the collapse that was missed in the numerous previous threads, perhaps you could start a new thread and I'll jump in with my two cents. I think that particular subject is bound to be a hot topic when (if?) the NIST report on WTC7 comes out.

That being said, I don't really see why the FDNY abandoning any activities related to WTC7 would be at all surprising considering the events that had already transpired on that day. And as you said, the building was empty before it collapsed, nobody died.

- Make7

"I don't have a problem with 7 being demolished either - it was empty, nobody died."

1. If building 7 was demolished, it means there were preparations made in advance of 9/11, which means 9/11 was planned.

2. Fire Departments can't make snap decisions to demolish burning office buildings, and you won't find any examples of this ever happening before. They don't have the means to, for one thing, and they wouldn't have any reason to either.

I mean, since this is either the 1st or 3rd building of this type to collapse solely due to fire, you'd think there wouldn't be the expectation for it to collapse, even in the absence of a fire fighting effort.

"They made that decision." My bad.
Still, his wording made it sound like something more proactive was done rather than just allowing the bldg. to fall.

I think that has to do with one's interpretaion of what was said. What if he had said the following:


- Make7

DU has a search feature which can help you locate threads and information that you have lost track of. I also use it to check to see if there are existing discussions for a topic which is new to me.

If we assume LIHOP or MIHOP, what could be the thinking in letting WTC7 fall also? Was a plane supposed to hit it, or...? Know what I mean?

WTC7 collapsing as it did was a HUGE red flag to many, it's a critical piece of the puzzle.

I realize the building housed offices that could have incriminating evidence perhaps, but if this was planned, what possibly could have been the thinking?

It's all part of the game. It points the finger at Silverstein, and away from the neocons.

completely evacuated would pose a great security risk.

Here's a "theory":

You see, they knew if the offices/building were to be empty, they couldn't afford to risk having someone (or a group) infiltrate the offices. It makes sense no matter what you believe in, the 9/11 Commission Report or MIHOP, the building couldn't be exposed to that vulnerability.

So, for WTC7, the building was ALWAYS lined with demolition charges for that EXACT contingency: vacating the building due to fire, the building must get "pulled".

Is it that much more of a stretch to think that WTC 1 & 2 were lined with demolition charges?

just because it made sense; don't know if it's actually practical to have an occupied building wired with explosives (safety issue-wise).

And if this is the case, why can't they just admit it.

if you look at the height of WTC 7 and the buildings around it, it would have been impossible to hit WTC 7 with a plane.

Flight 93 was supposed to hit it after the collapse of the Twin Towers cleared an approach path.

Try to keep up. :)

- Make7

I'm trying to establish the facts about Secret Service Agent Craig Miller, said in some articles to have been the only death in WTC 7. Some articles repeat that his body was never found. But then other mentions say his DNA was recovered between one of the towers and the "motel" in which he was staying between them, not WTC 7.

I don't know how the hierarchy of the FDNY works, but surely there cannot be very many "commanders" that Silverstein could have discussed "pulling" with. Has anyone ever put together a list, and contacted them?

...concerning the death of Agent Miller. As far as I can tell, the information that would indicate he died in the collapse of WTC7 all originate with a quote from this document http://www.ectaskforce.org/City_Leads_Way.pdf, which no longer seems to exist. A web archive search reveals that it is an article called City Leads Way in Fraud Fight Model for Credit, Data Theft Force written December 11, 2001. But more recent information printed in the news media regarding the circumstances of Agent Miller's death quite likely supersede that earlier report.

I think you are correct that there are not very many Commanders in the FDNY that Mr. Silverstein would have been talking to. Probably less than 20. (I'm not entirely sure about the number.) As far as I can recall, I have never heard of anyone trying to find out who Mr. Silverstein was talking to or attempting to contact them for clarification.

- Make7