FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Evan Burton]

"I remember getting a call from the 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 then we watched the building collapse."

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/about/about_buy.html

[Len Colby]

Len is correct that the term "pull" in demolition refers not to controlled demolition but pulling a building down with cables.

I’m glad you finally acknowledge that Ron after repeatedly insisting otherwise

And he did not use it as in "pull them," "pull them out," or "pull them from the building," if that was his intent, but he said "pull IT."

He could have meant “the operation”. In any case he said that the FD made the decision and indicated the primary factors were the inability to save the building and the danger to the fire fighters. Your theory that this was a “limited hangout” makes little sense:

- At the time the documentary was made (sometime before 9/11/2002) very little attention was being paid to the collapse of the building even by “inside jobbers” who were still few and far between.

- The ASCE report wasn’t finished yet

- No one but “truthers” seems to interpret the quote as him indication the tower was CDed there weren’t any “the owner of 7 WTC told PBS the FDNY demolished his building for safety reasons” stories in the media.

- Why would he make up such an in probable story? He is obviously a very smart guy, given time to prepare why would he say something so foolish? Did he decide to sat it at the spur of the moment? Neither the ‘limited hangout’ nor the ‘slip of the tongue’ theories makes sense

His statement also gives the impression that the building came down right after the decision was made to "pull it."

It does sound like that but for previously indicated reasons I don’t think so. It’s also possible that Chief Fellini gave him a courtesy call well after the decision had been made. This would made his story even less probable. Are we to suppose he was proposing that the FD thought the building was too dangerous to fight fires in (something they are trained to do) but safe enough to send in fire fighters to wire for controlled demo (something they are trained to do) and did so in a few minutes?

As for the eyewitnesses, quoted fightfighters say time and again that "they" said that WTC7 was going to collapse. The fightfighters keep saying "they" as if it were someone outside of the NYFD. There are suggestions that the conclusion or assumption that WTC7 was going to collapse was reached by NYFD, but there is one particular quote that identifies an outside source that sort of jumped off the page at me:

40. Captain Michael Currid, the president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, said that some time after the collapse of the Twin Towers, "Someone from the city's Office of Emergency Management" told him that building 7 was "basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it," after which the firefighters in the building were told to get out. (Murphy, Dean E., 2002. September 11: An Oral History. New York: Doubleday pp. 175-76)

So according to this source it was Saint Rudolph Giuliani's OEM that decided that WTC7 was "a lost cause," after which firefighters were told to get out and leave it alone. After that everyone waited hours for it to collapse, as "they" had said it would do.

Actually Ron if you review the quotes where the possibility of collapse was mentioned they all seem to indicate that fear emanated from the FD (except one where a FDNY commander said he got word from a cop). The “they” to me at least sounds like senior commanders. Several of the witnesses say they themselves thought the building would collapse and some of those mentioned why (damage, noises etc).

Here’s a more complete version of one of Evan’s quotes (Emphasis in this and subsequent quotes mine):

...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.

Capt. Chris Boyle

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

Here one Evan missed:

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.

[…]

WE were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there

[…]

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

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

These account mirror Evan’s quotes

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're HEARING THIS BUILDING CREAK AND FULLY INVOLVED IN FLAMES. IT'S LIKE, IS IT COMING DOWN NEXT? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110447.PDF

9. So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS BADLY DAMAGED ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND DEFINITELY IN DANGER OF COLLAPSE. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110462.PDF

12. At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110399.PDF

they went inside the building, and I told my partner that it wasn't safe and that we need to go because everything around us was like falling apart. –EMT Nicole Ferrell http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110304.PDF

1. WE were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini.

. I forget the name of the Deputy. SOME DEPUTY ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AND THOUGHT THAT THE BUILDING WAS TOO DANGEROUS TO CONTINUE WITH OPERATIONS, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center. –Captain Anthony Varriale http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110313.PDF

etc etc

To theorize that the idea 7 WTC would collapse originated with the OEM rather than FDNY commanders and fire fighters is to ignore the bulk of the evidence it’s akin to Ann Coulter quoting the lone biologist who questions evolution to claim that creationism is an equally or more valid theory.

Who among these witnesses would have thought that the building would fall completely straight down in a matter of seconds as if by controlled demolition? But by golly, that's what it did!

Why not? That’s what had happened to the Twin Towers hours earlier across the street. The building did collapse at free fall speed because the penthouses collapsed before the façade which seems to indicate the core collapsed before the perimeter leaving the building unsupported. Thus the outer wall and floors coming down quickly is not surprising.

The building didn’t topple over it would be expected to the path of least resistence is straight down. The debris did fall more to the south towards the damaged section like you expect it should have.

[Len Colby]

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC).

And I think that we Americans need to demand further investigation just to clarify the discrepancies that you've [Pilots for 9/11 Truth] found. And I think that we need to be getting on the phone with our Congressmen and women and letting them know that we don't accept the excuses that we're hearing now, that we want true investigators to do a true investigation." http://video.google.com

Wittenburg's claims have already been discussed here several aeronautical engineers and pilots (some equally qualified) beg to differ

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...g&pid=63355

Ted Muga

Muga's claims are essentially the same as Wittenburg's see above

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director.

[..]

"As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire. Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed.

No one said the metal parts burned or melted only that the engines shattered upon impact. I doubt GE study what the effect of there engines slamming into bombproof walls at cruise spped would be. There is little sign left of the F4 that flew into such a wall in he famous video clip

Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there.

Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!

There was only one documented case of an intercept over the mainland US in he decade before 9/11, Payne Stewart's plane. It took fighters already in the air about 80 minutes to intercept a plane flying in a straight line with its transponder on in uncrowded airspace

Edited September 19, 2007 by Len Colby

[Ron Ecker]

Len is correct that the term "pull" in demolition refers not to controlled demolition but pulling a building down with cables.

I’m glad you finally acknowledge that Ron after repeatedly insisting otherwise

"Repeatedly insisting," eh? I must really be losing it. Please provide one quote or link where I have stated that "pull" in the demolition business refers to controlled demolition.

[Len Colby]

In response to a post in which Matthew pointed out that “pull” means pull down (with chains) or to knockdown with a wrecking ball you wrote the following. (Note I edited all the posts below for brevity)

Go to the “A-Z of Engineering” website, and you will see that “Demolition means to pull down, or to destroy or break something.” Go to the First Family of Demolition site (about the Loizeaux family), and see where Stacey L talks about what has to be done to a structure “in order to properly pull it down.” Go to Pacificblasting.com and read how “The weight of the structure will begin to pull the building down in a controlled direction.” Go to the NIH Record website and read about some buildings that seemed to resist demolition: “Those are pretty tough old structures. It took over a week to pull those down.” Visit the British site This Is Bradford and see where the company Controlled Demolition was going to “pull down parts of Cheapside and Broadway.”

[…]

…on the same TV program in which Silverstein referred to pulling WTC7, an audio is played of a WTC demo crew member saying on a radio, “Hello? Oh, we’re getting ready to pull building six.” And then Luis Mendes of the NYC Dept of Design and Construction says, “We had to be very careful how we demolished building six . . . we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.” So clearly the reference to being “ready to pull building six” refers to its demolition as described by Mendes.

Is it logical that Silverstein on the same program would say “pull it” about building seven, and not be referring to the same thing, demolition, that is used in reference to building six? I don’t think so. In my opinion, if anyone thinks Silverstein meant “something else entirely,” it’s because he or she wants to believe it and for no other reason that can be logically argued.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=56854

You revisited the topic a few more times:

Not only that, but Building 7 collapsed without even being hit by a plane, in what coincidentally looked like a controlled demolition (with the leaseholder's "pull it" talk being just another coincidence, misunderstood).

11/20/06

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...l&pid=75398

References on "pulling" in controlled demolition, For Len and Steve:

On the history of controlled demolition:

Gradually (blasters) began to develop techniques to increase the efficiency of explosive charges, such as pre-cutting steel beams and attaching cables to certain columns to "pull" a structure in a given direction.

http://www.implosionworld.com/history3.htm

On the controlled demolition of the Mapes Building in Reno, Nevada:

Cables will be placed on the concrete columns, securing them to the interior of the building, to pull the structure in on itself in the implosion.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041028022557/...e/ns_00068.html

On the Pacific Palisades controlled demolition:

The weight of the structure will begin to pull the building down in a controlled direction.

http://www.pacificblasting.com/implosionstory.html

Do these references give you some idea of the use of the term "to pull" in controlled demolition? And it is obviously the way Silverstein was using it, though you want to twist the English language and normal syntax by insisting that Silverstein meant pulling firefighters when he said pull "it." I’ve got news for you. People don’t talk the way you want Silverstein to, especially educated people like a New York real estate billionaire.

Ron

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=79183

What you and the other CT's need to find are references that the term "pull it" (the entire phrase) is a slang or common phrase used in the CD industry and firefighting community to describe the act of destroying a building using explosives.

Strain at gnats all you want. I have given credible references that "to pull" is a term and technique used in conjunction with controlled demolition.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=79231

EDITED to fix formating error

Edited September 20, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

The question is what was the "it" he was referring to. Since the verb "pull" can't refer to the explosive demolition of a building but can refer to removal of firefighters (or the fire fighting operation) seem more likely especially since he said "they" apparently referring to the FDNY "made that decision to pull".

I’m not into getting involved in semantic battles.....

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

The context in which I made the 2nd statement (1st chronologically) was totally different.

[Ron Ecker]

Len,

Thanks for the quotes from me on pulling buildings. Last year I looked for all I could find on the subject and posted the results. I also stated later that the term has been used “in conjunction with” controlled demolition. In almost all cases, as was self-evident in my post, the people quoted are referring to pulling down buildings with cables (or possibly other means). But in the Pacific Palisades description the term “to pull” is expressly used in describing controlled demolition: “The weight of the structure will begin to pull the building down in a controlled direction.” There is also a “pull” quote about cables being used inside during a controlled demolition (“to pull the structure in on itself in the implosion”). This shows that the term can be loosely used (incorrectly used, if you will) in reference to controlled demolition even within the demolition industry. (I incorrectly assumed at the time that the “pull” reference to WTC6 was to controlled demolition. But I now see that that building had its whole center virtually vaporized, so the reference was apparently to pulling down what remained. The massive explosion at WTC6 appears to be a neglected mystery.) So when I said recently that you were right that the term does not refer to controlled demolition, I should have said it does not “normally” refer to controlled demolition, for as I showed in my post it has indeed been used that way. (Thanks for reminding me of it.) IMO this reinforces the likelihood that Silverstein loosely or “incorrectly” used the term in reference to controlled demolition.

Ron

[Kevin M. West]

There was no explosion in wtc6 and nothing was vaporized. It's quite obvious from the pictures that large amounts of debris fell on top of 6 and it partially collapsed.

Edited September 20, 2007 by Kevin M. West

[Ron Ecker]

There was no explosion in wtc6 and nothing was vaporized. It's quite obvious from the pictures that large amounts of debris fell on top of 6 and it partially collapsed.

I have not researched WTC6. I did a quick search before posting today to confirm that it was not a controlled demolition. I found a couple of sites such as this, which raise questions about what happened:

http://wtc6.total911.info/

[Duane Daman]

There was no explosion in wtc6 and nothing was vaporized. It's quite obvious from the pictures that large amounts of debris fell on top of 6 and it partially collapsed.

Wrong again "Phunkytowel" ... Read and learn something besides the governnment propaganda you insist on swallowing .

HOUR ONE: Dr Mark Sircus Ac, OMD --> ELECTRODINE - THYROID & MITOCHONDRIAL REJUVENATION and NUCLEAR DETOXIFICATION -- Preparation for Nuclear Radiation from Dirty Bombs or Nuclear War

Electrodine Ionic Thyroid Iodine & Mitochondrial Health Super Support

HOUR TWO: PROOF OF micro NUKES AT WTC 1, 2 & 7 Government DEMOLITION!

Update: The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - WTCBy Ed Ward, MD

03/18/07 Update: The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - WTCBy Ed Ward, MD The Mysterious Craters:

A thorough examination the debris of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings reveals further evidence of massive power and heat - a thermonuclear blast. WTC 6 was 8 stories high. The total height of its central debris of the crater was about 30 to 50 feet below sea level and about 120 feet wide. Eight stories of building collapses and leaves a hole at least 30 feet deep.

Light Detection and Ranging - LIDAR displays from NOAA - Dark Green = 0 to -30 feet. Another LIDAR map shows the central portion depth of WTC 6 in the range of -35 to -55 feet. Besides the crater in WTC 6, note the two craters that surround WTC 1 (perimeters are 30 feet deep and 250 to 300 feet wide) and WTC 2 (perimeters are 30 feet deep and more than 300 feet wide - some overlapping of the explosions). WTC 1 - 110 stories tall - debris pile 6 stories with a 30 feet crater surrounding it. WTC 2 - 110 stories tall - debris pile 6 stories high with a 30 feet crater surrounding it. WTC 3 (Marriott) - 22 stories tall - debris pile 3 stories. WTC 4 - 9 stories tall - debris pile 3 stories (the only building that is even close to its correct debris height). WTC 6 - 8 stories tall - debris pile MINUS 3 stories. WTC 7 - 47 stories tall - debris pile 7 stories. The New York times has a crude interactive map placing the crater depth at -30 feet. According to the official story, beams from WTC 1 collapsed the building. However, the collapse did not make a debris pile. It made a debris hole. (BTW, no supposed unspecified vague ‘scalar’ weapon can make these massive craters beneath intact debris.)

http://www.clayandiron.com/news.jhtml?meth...mp;news.id=1002

[Kevin M. West]

Wrong again Duane, there were no micro-nukes at the WTC, and the 'debris hole' is because the building didn't just go up from street level, it had a mall and several levels of basement below it. Once the collapse started due to the thousands of tons of debris falling on the roof, it proceeded all the way into the basement. There was nothing special about street level that would make the collapse stop there.

[Michael Hogan]

The question is what was the "it" he was referring to. Since the verb "pull" can't refer to the explosive demolition of a building but can refer to removal of firefighters (or the fire fighting operation) seem more likely especially since he said "they" apparently referring to the FDNY "made that decision to pull".

I’m not into getting involved in semantic battles.....

.....The context in which I made the 2nd statement (1st chronologically) was totally different.

Your words speak for themselves.

Edited September 20, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Kevin M. West]

Also note that the one with the debris pile that's below street level is the shortest of the buildings listed. The problem with your numbers there is that you're measuring the height of the debris pile from street level, not from the bottom of the pile. ALL of the piles started at the basement depth of the respective buildings, all but wtc6 piled up high enough for the pile to be above street level. WTC6, being only 8 stories tall, didn't have enough debris to pile up above street level.

[Duane Daman]

Also note that the one with the debris pile that's below street level is the shortest of the buildings listed. The problem with your numbers there is that you're measuring the height of the debris pile from street level, not from the bottom of the pile. ALL of the piles started at the basement depth of the respective buildings, all but wtc6 piled up high enough for the pile to be above street level. WTC6, being only 8 stories tall, didn't have enough debris to pile up above street level.

I guess you didn't bother to read the rest of the article then and check out the HOT SPOTS which could NOT have been cause by "falling debris " .

Thermal images from September 16, 2001 show hot spots in the WTC 6 crater which persisted until at least September 18, 2001 as referenced by the composite illustration (below).

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm

[Jack White]

Also note that the one with the debris pile that's below street level is the shortest of the buildings listed. The problem with your numbers there is that you're measuring the height of the debris pile from street level, not from the bottom of the pile. ALL of the piles started at the basement depth of the respective buildings, all but wtc6 piled up high enough for the pile to be above street level. WTC6, being only 8 stories tall, didn't have enough debris to pile up above street level.

I guess you didn't bother to read the rest of the article then and check out the HOT SPOTS which could NOT have been cause by "falling debris " .

Thermal images from September 16, 2001 show hot spots in the WTC 6 crater which persisted until at least September 18, 2001 as referenced by the composite illustration (below).

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm

West shows his lack of accurate information by saying Building Six COLLAPSED

INTO ITS BASEMENT. Building Six did NOT collapse, but suffered two EXPLOSIONS

which created huge craters ten stories deep, as photos show. Study the facts.

Jack