Post by RPankn on Jun 22, 2005 17:19:43 GMT -5
Prison Planet | June 22 2005
For a year and a half since this website first gave traction to the story, the Internet and talk radio has buzzed with speculation on what Larry Silverstein meant when he admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack.
We have been resolute in pointing out that to 'pull' a building means to demolish it. The very same PBS documentary features demolition experts using the term 'pull it' as they discuss controlled demolitions of buildings. Watch the clip here.
Speculation around the issue has only increased with Silverstein's refusal to explain his comments.
Now for the first time we can reveal that Silverstein has responded to a question on the subject, but his answer will unfortunately only lead to more conjecture.
A New York Post article, '9/11 Ad by Loon Tycoon Sees gov't plot,' was an attempt to whitewash giant ads taken out in major newspapers by millionaire Jimmy Walters questioning the official story of 9/11. One of those ads highlighted the Building 7 issue and asked Silverstein about the comments he made in the PBS documentary..
The journalist who wrote the hit piece, Sam Smith, directly questioned Silverstein. Silverstein told Smith that he "meant something else" by the "pull it" comment but mysteriously refused to elaborate any further.
But Smith, in all his establishment journalistic wisdom, didn’t think the comments merited a mention in his article, so it was never published.
In a phone conversation with Thought Crime News editor Simon Aronowitz, Smith said that he didn't feel the comment was strictly related to the scope of his article. This is a Murdoch owned newspaper. One has to wonder whether the word came down from a higher office not to mention the 'pull it' issue because of its sensitivity.
The question is, if Silverstein didn’t mean that "pull it" meant to demolish the building then what did he mean? It’s obvious that the kid’s been caught with his hand in the cookie jar and he’s trying to make excuses.
Was Silverstein simply talking about evacuating the building?
We know for a fact that although the building had been evacuated there were still secret service personel in the building who died when it collapsed. They weren’t told to evacuate.
Whatever Silverstein meant by the term "pull it," the fact remains that the building collapsed exactly like a controlled demolition and it wasn’t even hit by a plane. It was 'pulled' in the true sense of the term, by well placed explosives
So the fact that Silverstein hasn’t made the effort to make this justification in the wider media, and was only willing to comment on it when pushed, tells us that he’s not comfortable in being questioned on this, in the face of what now must be hundreds of people calling his office asking about it.
We need a clear and concise answer.
What are we to expect next? Cornered animals are very unpredictable. We're wating for the day when they hold their hands up and say 'you're right, explosives brought down the buildings!' Al-Qaeda had their agents wire the buildings before the attacks!
It takes demoliton experts weeks and sometimes months to successfully wire a building, the supposition that Mohammed Atta's motley crew could have pulled it off under cover is too absurd to contemplate.
Our focus remains steadfast. These criminals are under a relentless barrage of questioning. Criminals in the spotlight cannot commit more crimes and get away with it. They would love dearly to carry out another terror attack and have everyone worship then again as they did after 9/11. But our hard work in keeping them on the back foot is saving lives and liberties in the long term. Keep working hard and stay in the fight.
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/220605silversteinresponds.htm
For a year and a half since this website first gave traction to the story, the Internet and talk radio has buzzed with speculation on what Larry Silverstein meant when he admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack.
We have been resolute in pointing out that to 'pull' a building means to demolish it. The very same PBS documentary features demolition experts using the term 'pull it' as they discuss controlled demolitions of buildings. Watch the clip here.
Speculation around the issue has only increased with Silverstein's refusal to explain his comments.
Now for the first time we can reveal that Silverstein has responded to a question on the subject, but his answer will unfortunately only lead to more conjecture.
A New York Post article, '9/11 Ad by Loon Tycoon Sees gov't plot,' was an attempt to whitewash giant ads taken out in major newspapers by millionaire Jimmy Walters questioning the official story of 9/11. One of those ads highlighted the Building 7 issue and asked Silverstein about the comments he made in the PBS documentary..
The journalist who wrote the hit piece, Sam Smith, directly questioned Silverstein. Silverstein told Smith that he "meant something else" by the "pull it" comment but mysteriously refused to elaborate any further.
But Smith, in all his establishment journalistic wisdom, didn’t think the comments merited a mention in his article, so it was never published.
In a phone conversation with Thought Crime News editor Simon Aronowitz, Smith said that he didn't feel the comment was strictly related to the scope of his article. This is a Murdoch owned newspaper. One has to wonder whether the word came down from a higher office not to mention the 'pull it' issue because of its sensitivity.
The question is, if Silverstein didn’t mean that "pull it" meant to demolish the building then what did he mean? It’s obvious that the kid’s been caught with his hand in the cookie jar and he’s trying to make excuses.
Was Silverstein simply talking about evacuating the building?
We know for a fact that although the building had been evacuated there were still secret service personel in the building who died when it collapsed. They weren’t told to evacuate.
Whatever Silverstein meant by the term "pull it," the fact remains that the building collapsed exactly like a controlled demolition and it wasn’t even hit by a plane. It was 'pulled' in the true sense of the term, by well placed explosives
So the fact that Silverstein hasn’t made the effort to make this justification in the wider media, and was only willing to comment on it when pushed, tells us that he’s not comfortable in being questioned on this, in the face of what now must be hundreds of people calling his office asking about it.
We need a clear and concise answer.
What are we to expect next? Cornered animals are very unpredictable. We're wating for the day when they hold their hands up and say 'you're right, explosives brought down the buildings!' Al-Qaeda had their agents wire the buildings before the attacks!
It takes demoliton experts weeks and sometimes months to successfully wire a building, the supposition that Mohammed Atta's motley crew could have pulled it off under cover is too absurd to contemplate.
Our focus remains steadfast. These criminals are under a relentless barrage of questioning. Criminals in the spotlight cannot commit more crimes and get away with it. They would love dearly to carry out another terror attack and have everyone worship then again as they did after 9/11. But our hard work in keeping them on the back foot is saving lives and liberties in the long term. Keep working hard and stay in the fight.
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/220605silversteinresponds.htm