Mikeuk

OK, I've found it on the first site I quoted

If you read that passage calmly and sensibly it is apparent that the firefighters were at work in a block called the Verizon Building and were pulled out because '7 WTC' was in danger of collapsing on top of the Verizon Building.

Looks perfectly straightforward to me.

youcanhandlethetruth

It's still very confusing to me.

Sorry to bore you with examining the evidence comprehensively, but it's very important we don't just accept it without looking closer at these websites claims. Ok here we go..........

I agree with the second paragraph, but if we accept they were in the Verizon building as you say, then the first paragraph sounds like it contradicts it because it says:

"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."

Anyone reading that paragraph, would naturally assume he is referring to WTC7.

Silverstein's quote:
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me 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 just pull it."

Ok so are they implying there was a raging inferno in WTC7 ?
Not according to the website author who says:

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Also if you look at the following quote too from the .pdf doument:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...gion/20050812_
WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF

"We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. 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."
If you examine that .pdf document what you don't see quoted is the whole story:

"we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building.
We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. 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."

So
a) They're saying that a fire could spread like wildfire that quickly within what appears to be a very short space of time ? from what he's saying it's almost like it went from "pockets of fire" to inferno in the space of 1 or 2 hours.

b) Even if it was a raging fire,as it says in this article:
Madrid's Towering Inferno & The 9/11 Building Collapse Cover-Up

"In fact before September 11th, 2001, no building had ever collapsed as a result of fire alone. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing."

c) In any event, we've all seen the photos on the website. Hardly a raging inferno - I mean come on !

Also note the website says further down:

"What we do have for sure:

10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of "the building."
12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of "the building.""

Again, not only are they using multiple terms for "pull" but they are talking as if "the building" is WTC7 - it just doesn't make sense.......

I suspect what actually happened is this......

As you say, there were no firefighters in WTC7 and they were probably in the Verizon building, but when asked about WTC7's collapse, Silverstein makes the gaff that he says they "pulled" it, and when realizing his mistake, pretended that he meant "pull" the firefighters out of the building.

The website also attempts to cover it's tracks up but debunks itself by using multiple terms for "pull"

Not only "pulling the firemen out" but the website says:
"Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition as was the case with Building Six where they quote:
"Yes, that worker certainly does say they’re getting ready to “pull” building six. "

I don't want to go round in circles and bore you anymore on one particular point but in summary, do we really believe it collapsed in perfect symmetry because of damage and a few fires ? Especially when there is proof of controlled demolition (see Steven E Jones)

9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown

Even if you're not convinced about WTC7 there are far too many other co-incidences and inconsistencies to believe the official story.

911truth.org ::::: THE TOP 40

Hartlepool

They were probably very busy changing out all the column boltings to shear type boltings.

It's a quick change job,that's all.

I hope not though.

Mikeuk

This was such a vast and traumatic conflagration it's hardly surprising if there is some confusion between the various accounts. Clearly Silverstein and the Fire Chief weren't in 7 WTC. It's probably used as a reference point for the area where they were, and its not 100% clear whether Silverstein was on the spot. I would think he was probably talking to the Fire Chief on the phone.

I don't suppose the quoted 'spokesperson' was anywhere near 7 WTC on the day, ao I don't see any significance in these discrepancies. The actual statement given by a fireman on the spot states that he was in a different building that was threatened by the collapse of 7 WTC.

The reasons for 'pulling' the firefighters out of the danger area are obvious.

Now tell me why Silverstein and his supposed conspirators (Fire Dept., CIA, Police Dept. George W Bush etc. etc. etc.) might want to demolish the building at that stage. What would be the point - sinister or otherwise - of the supposed order to 'pull' the building?

Are you suggesting that this was the biggest insurance scam in world history?

Hartlepool

I think the demo preparation could easily have been done in a short time.

The reasons why, for me, are clearly shown within the list of occupants of 7WTC.

A massive list of US problems solved in 6.5 seconds it would seem.

American Presidential strategists would just jump at the chance offered by 7WTC being obliterated I'm afraid.

youcanhandlethetruth

Sure of course I accept that neither Silverstein, nor his spokesperson were there on the day.

Claim: Silverstein Warned Not To Come To Work On 9/11

But there are still discrepancies from him and the Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage website as to their accounts of what happened and the reasons why WTC7 fell at all....

You ask me:
"Are you suggesting that this was the biggest insurance scam in world history?"

All I would say is that you read this article and note where it says:

"In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

Since then a total of nine insurance companies have continued to pay Silverstein as the legal wrangle continues. The only ones who have resisted in any way have been Allianz."

Is There A Secret To The 9/11 Insurance Battle?

Please note I am not saying the purpose of 9/11 was for an insurance scam.
I am saying that it was merely part of the criminal event, along with the insider trading that took place before Sept 11 (see 40 top reasons link), and of course, the tragic deaths of all those innocent people.

youcanhandlethetruth

I'm not so sure it could have been done in a short time, but I really don't know and I suppose it depends what you mean by short time.

But I've got no doubt that it was done because (apart from all the other 911 evidence) there is scientific evidence of imploding all the three towers with explosives from a number of eye witnesses, including firemen and police and scientific proof from the debris.

Roland

The insurance was just a bonus.

Right you have heard from the defense now time to hear from the prosecution.

Their are about 19 parts to this but heres just a few things to consider.

Hartlepool

ychtt,what I say is that half a dozen men with handtools could have replaced the central column boltings at a lower level with substitute substandard boltings,almost silently.
This could collapse the central columns as shown on video everywhere.
Explosions would be good but not absolutely necessary as bolt failure would occur with the slightest of movements of the building,(bolt shearing).

I'm not saying this is what caused any collapses of buildings of course.

youcanhandlethetruth

Oh I see what you mean.
Maybe you're right Hartlepool, but what about the the twin towers ?
They should not have fallen even if they were hit by planes or had fire.
Jet fuel is not hot enough to bring down a steel framed building.
That's not crazy, that is scientific fact.