04-29-2006, 05:06 PM
|
|
|
Doin fine
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 24,984
|
http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
Quote:
Those sceptical of the ?pull=demolish? idea suggest that ?pull it? could mean ?pull a firefighting operation?, instead. And even sites collecting examples to show that it is a demolition term , offer some support for this idea. Note how that page also contains the following quotes referring to the firefighters (our emphasis on the words in bold):
...they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too...
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.
And we have other issues with the ?demolition? interpretation of Silverstein?s remarks.
Problem #1, Larry Silverstein is not a demolition contractor, neither was the fire department chief, so why should we assume they?d be using slang demolition terms?
Problem #2, Silverstein says "they made that decision to pull", for instance -- the Fire Department. If "pull" means "demolish", then he's saying the Fire Department may not have decided to bring the building down if they couldn't contain the fire, but because it was beyond them, they decided to blow it up. Does this make sense? Not in the slightest.
Problem #3, Silverstein is suggesting that the decision to demolish the building was optional. It might not have happened. Does this fit with the idea of a convenient insurance scam? No, not at all.
Problem #4, why would the Fire Department willingly agree to engage in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud?
Problem #5, and since when do Fire Departments blow up buildings anyway?
Problem #6, and if it's so obvious that WTC7 was demolished, then why are the insurance companies not suing Silverstein for fraud?
Problem #7, and why would Silverstein admit this on television?
|
|
|
|