9-11 was an inside job

[jaqeboy]

There's infinite discussion on this and Silverstein has shut up on it, counted his money and rebuilt a new building there. Another & another.

Here's a good survey page on the "pull it" remark from a former Derry, New-Hampshire boy, Mike Rivero.

[error]

"If the FEMA collapse report were true then the fires shown would have been burning throughout entire floors, not just in a few rooms."

Ironically, this captioned a picture of 7 WTC which appears to show the fires burning throughout entire floors, not just in a few rooms.

And the page really doesn't do much to address the "pull it" remark except for speculate.

[jaqeboy]

Here is my main issue with 911 ... building 7 was demolished ... they went in to the disaster zone and preped and wired the entire building for demo while its on fire, then demolished it.. all in a few hours ... It takes alot longer than hours to wire and prep a building for demo..  you have to get every column exposed and prepped, haul in hundreds of pounds of high explosives while the building is on fire,wire it all and then demo it.. even in ideal conditions it takes days to weeks to do this properly..  and the demo was perfect, it fell perfectly into it's foot print..

This shows that the building was set to demo, before the planes hit, its not like the building was built with a self destruct button and they just had to push it...

One theory is that the building was "built for demolition", ie built from the beginning so it could be brought down - I read something on this, but can't find it quickly for you.

Also, here's a site de-bunking the controlled demo theory.

I used to not believe the JFK and Roswell conspiracy stuff..  but now after seeing this utter crap going on... I have no idea what's really the truth..

I think the PTB benefit from the confusion, hence they spend billions of dollars on disinformation to keep us unsure. That's the real challenge here - getting to the truth trough the fog of information.

[error]

I also have trouble trusting information on a web page which looks like the design was done by Internet marketers spammers.

[jaqeboy]

"If the FEMA collapse report were true then the fires shown would have been burning throughout entire floors, not just in a few rooms."

Ironically, this captioned a picture of 7 WTC which appears to show the fires burning throughout entire floors, not just in a few rooms.

Those don't look like the entire floors to me. Compare to other skyscraper fires. These pics are what give a lot of people pause and the ones that do show raging fires across an entire flloor still didn't collapse.

And the page really doesn't do much to address the "pull it" remark except for speculate.

There are other pages that quote seemingly all known instances of the contemporaneous use of the terms "pull it" for context. I'll post it if I run accross it again.

One guy called Controlled Demolitions, Inc. to ask them what the terms meant - text and audio at this site: http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/cdi-pull-it-means-pull-it-down_30.html

Another "pull it" analysis page.

[Russell Kanning]

you pull buildings and
pull bank jobs

we all know what that means

[error]

At the same time, I might pull my men out of a dangerous situation.

[jaqeboy]

At the same time, I might pull my men out of a dangerous situation.

Yeah, I know - I agree. That's what keeps a lot of this a mystery - the ambiguity of some (a lot ) of the evidence. One theory says the best thing the PTB have going is that the people are kept in confusion. If it was really clear one way or the other, then we would be unanimous in knowing what to do!

[error]

Huh? What to do is already crystal clear, since the government's response to 9/11 would have been exactly the same whether it was an inside job or just a convenient excuse.

That is: reduce, take down and dismantle this corrupt, immoral system.

[E-ville]

IF you believe that this building fell from a fire,you must not understand the phisical properties of steel.. stel doesnt just break when it gets hot it bends.. if this building was engulfed in flames from top to bottom it would not have fallen like it did in a streight down path and at the sped of gravity.. the only way this happens is all the suport beams were cut with explosives all at the same time (ok miliseconds apart)  this is how you get a building to fall..

Really if they werent hiding somthing then why don't they just tell us and prove what hapened...  They cant becuase the truth is very very damaging to them...

Over all there is more evidence to support 911 being a inside job than a terrorist attack..

Really cops try that on us.. they say "Can I search your car.. you don't have anything to hide do you?" but there is a diffrence, were protected by the constitution and bill of rights.. the government isnt there here to serve us the people that pay there paychecks.

But how can you trust a government to police its self, history has proven that it will get currupted and self destruct..  Power atracts greedy people.. its that simple!

[alohamonkey]

That is: reduce, take down and dismantle this corrupt, immoral system.

Speaking of corrupt, immoral systems . . . have you seen this article?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle

Since I'm still new to the libertarian perspective, how does a free market enterprise guard itself against greed and corruption like this?  I understand that there would be less corruption if the government wasn't in charge of contracting but this is still an issue I battle with in regards to libertarianism.  

[Insurgent]

The "pull it" remark is a honey-pot, also known as a red-herring, designed to distract from meaningful research and discussion. While people debate endlessly about it and speculate that it's a smoking gun proving the fact that WTC7 was deliberately demolished, more significant facts become glossed over.

The wonderful website, OilEmpire.us has an article discussing this at http://oilempire.us/911bait.html Scroll down the page a little bit to find these statements about the "pull it" quote:
===================================

The State Department website about World Trade Center Building 7 verifies how inferential evidence of physical anamolies are unlikely to accomplish needed political changes. Two discussions about "physical evidence" and 9/11 complicity are worth reading to see how their predictions have been shown to be correct.

    "The case of 9/11, now being tried in our metaphorical court of the corporate media and public perception, leaves no doubt as to who could produce more expert witness testimony or present them in the most impressive manner. ... It is something else to analyze the temperature at which steel is weakened and determining whether or not an unproven amount of burning jet fuel, in unspecified concentrations and unknown locations could have weakened steel supports in the World Trade Center to the point where an unspecified amount of weight might cause them to buckle.
    -- Michael Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon, pp. 13-14

    www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112603_kennedy.html
    The Kennedys, Physical Evidence, and 9/11
    by Michael C. Ruppert



Most 9/11 skeptics are now familiar with the statement by Larry Silverstein, who leased the WTC shortly before 9/11, that he decided "pull it" regarding Building 7 (the building that collapsed but was not hit by a plane). Some in the 9/11 truth movement made this comment a "smoking gun" for demolition claims, even though the case for demolition of WTC 7 was made long before his comment was publicized, most notably at the website www.wtc7.net

    http://wtc7.net/pullit.html
    A review of the numerous websites that assert that Silverstein's remark constituted an admission of demolishing WTC 7 is revealing. Few such sites note that the physical characteristics of the collapse exactly match conventional demolitions, or that fires have never before or since felled steel-framed high-rise buildings -- two facts that constitute an overwhelming case for the controlled demolition of WTC 7. Instead, the pull-it controversy seems to have created a distraction, eclipsing the case for controlled demolition.



"Pull it" is a deliberately ambiguous statement that could have been a form of bait, and now has been discredited by its utterer, probably in an effort to discredit its promoters just as the Rumsfeld "missile" quote was floated and then withdrawn.

The best website that discussed the "pull it" controversy was by Dutch author Joël v.d. Reijden, who has unfortunately "pulled" his excellent analysis from the web (he evidently grew tired of the abusive emails from promoters of the "no planes" hoaxes). Here is his analysis of "pull it"

    http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm [no longer on line]
    9/11 – My own review of the entire event.
    Apparently Larry Silverstein tries to explain something to us in the 2002 PBS documentary 'America Rebuilds':

        "I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

    I mailed Jowenko BV and asked if 'pull' was an industry term for 'demolish'. They said it wasn't. Implosionworld said the same thing. I run into the same problem when looking into different dictionaries. There is always a distinction made between 'pull down', 'pull away' and 'pull back'. And I have not been able to find one person on the internet who uses this word as a substitute for 'demolish'. So I think it's safe to assume that Larry needs to clarify what he meant, but unfortunately he refuses to do that.
    In the same PBS documentary this is said by one of the construction workers:

        "[narrator]The department of design and construction had leveled World Trade Center buildings 4 and 5...[telephone rings] Hello?...ow, we're getting ready to pull building six....[The documentary moves on to the next person] We had to be very careful how we demolished building six..."

    Now, lets see what implosionworld told me:

        "There is no such phrase in explo-demo. Most likely he meant "pull out" as in have people evacuate. Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally."

    Of course these companies are not going to adhere to any conspiracy theories, but they did help in dispelling another possible red herring. The fact that it is very likely that 7 WTC has been blown up doesn't change at all, but I wonder why Silverstein made this strange statement and especially why PBS conveniently put that 'ready to pull building six' sentence in. Maybe someone is messing with our heads. I don't know.

and from the same author:

    http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_summary.htm
    Were there explosives in WTC I, II and/or VII? If I had to guess, I would say it's likely, but this theory sounds so ridiculous, that we need more eyewitness accounts and videos. Something that makes me very uncomfortable is that all the prominent 'researchers' I do not trust are peddling the explosives-at-the-WTC-theory.

    Update: General Benton K. Partin doesn't seem to agree with this theory. Read that article here

[note: retired General Partin publicized his beliefs that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing involved multiple explosions, and therefore was more than merely a crime involving just Tim McVeigh]



It is hard to say whether the Silverstein "pull it" quote is (1) bait, (2) boasting or (3) greatly misinterpreted. Any attorney or public relations representative would state that the context is "the firefighter team had such a terrible loss of life, so therefore they made the decision to pull it (the firefighters)."

The State Department discussion of "pull it" shows that this prediction has been verified.

In September 2005, Silverstein's office issued a "clarification" that shows the futility of relying on this sort of "evidence" to make political change.

    http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
    The Collapse of World Trade Center 7
    Allegation:  9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished.  The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds.  Mr. Silverstein said:

        I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire.  I said, you know, "We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it."  And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.

    9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein's suggestion to "pull it" is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.
    Facts:  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.
        The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings.  The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.
        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.

another debunking of "Pull It"

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/02/tales-of-911-truthiness.html
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 02, 2007
Tales of 9/11 Truthiness

[jaqeboy]

Huh? What to do is already crystal clear, since the government's response to 9/11 would have been exactly the same whether it was an inside job or just a convenient excuse.

That is: reduce, take down and dismantle this corrupt, immoral system.

Go ahead - please do this!

[error]

What do you think I've been working on?!?

[jaqeboy]

What do you think I've been working on?!?

Lemme know when you're done.

Meanwhile, there are questions (for those curious) about events of recent history. Some of those answers might lead to restraint, prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators of the crimes, which would hopefully reduce the danger to the remainder of the American (and other) people.