If WTC 7 was "pulled", maybe WTC 1 & 2 were also.

[Abe Linkman]

Larry Weinstein (whose co. operated the WTC complex) said (about WTC 7):

"I remember getting a call from the, er, 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."

As someone else pointed out, if the fire couldn't be contained, how could anyone get in to place explosives inside the building? And, WHO would have done that? Is the NYFD in the demolition business?

In other words, explosives had to have already been in place inside the building. That so, why is it so hard to believe they would only have been pre-placed in WTC 7 but not WTC 1 & 2?

[LARED]

1. I'm sure you've thought of this possibility

the but let me be the first to bring it up.

Maybe, just maybe, there were no explosives in the building. Hence no one placed explosives anywhere.

[Abe Linkman]

18. And, here's a "I'm sure you've thought of this possibility" for YOU,

but let me be the first to bring it up. Maybe, just maybe, when the Unelected Fraud twice said that he saw the first plane strike the WTC, he was telling the truth. Hence, there is no reason to assume otherwise.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Why change the subject, Abe?

What does Bush seeing the first plane strike the tower have to do with planting explosions?

This is your topic - why are you trying to derail the discussion?

[slaveplanet]

48. how quickly we forget

there is precedence for this sort of behavior...when it comes to the wtc...www.soundwaves2000.com/rense/asx/rense01-20-04.asx

a situation in 1993 comes to mind

[RC]

2. Yeah, but..., but..., but...,

The twin towers were so much bigger. Everybody knows that the burning jet fuel flowed down the elevator shafts 80 + floors to the 7 sub basement and burned so hot that it melted all 47 supports and caused both buildings to collapse with in a few minutes of each other. :eyes:

[plaguepuppy]

3. Gimmie some!

Hey, I want some of that jet fuel! I bet if you blew on it a little it would have melted the bedrock too!

[HarryLime]

11. The China Syndrome

Peronally, I'm astonished that the jet fuel didn't completely blow a whole through the planet. We narrowly avoided the "China Syndrome".

Thanks to our hero, George Bush.

[gandalf]

5. Right!

And as someone here on DU uses to post, blacksmiths have done that for centuries (no comment necessary).

[RH]

4. Or in other words

at some stage they simply decided not to continue to fight the fire?

I had previously understood that in the context of fighting a fire, that is the usual meaning of "pull".

As has been said before, it is all about choices, isn't it?

[gandalf]

6. Indications for such a decision?

Are there documented indications for a decision to stop the fire fighting?
As far as I know (I am no WTC fire researcher) the fire men inside the building thought the fire to be manageable.

[RH]

10. I don't know

An after action report followed the Pentagon incident. Something similar presumably followed in New York.

In the mean time it would all depend on what is meant by "manageable".

[gandalf]

12. Manageable

is only the word I found to describe what I remember of the transcripts of the firemen inside WTC. They said something like "here is a fire and there is a fire, we need so and so many hoses".

[RH]

22. Correct me if I am wrong

but I do not recall any report of fireman being crushed by the collapse of WT7.

They were therefore, presumably, "pulled" well before that event.


"The after-action reports tell us that many of the firefighters in the second World Trade Center tower to collapse simply didn't know that their commanders had ordered them out."

http://www.mondaymemo.net/020909feature.htm

[slaveplanet]

49. yup-in fact

some firemen leaked those tapes to the New Yory daily News, causing the feds to backpedal from their previous announcements ...Firemen were up close and personal with the flames and seemed optimistic, and that clearly went out over the police radios...that is until the radios suddenly malfunctioned and the tapes conviniently disappeared...those leaked tapes are well documented...www.soundwaves2000.com/rense/asx/rense01-20-04.asx

[LARED]

7. Abe

Do you have a link regarding Larry Weinstein and his company. I did a Lexis Nexus search in a number of different ways and got nada.

Thank you

[RedSock]

8. Silverstein? PBS?

I thought this was Larry Silverstein?

I think it on a PBS show about the WTC in September 2002(?). Not 100% sure of the date. ...

Transcript on-line?

[Abe Linkman]

9. Correction and apology

I should have said: Larry Silverstein

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Abe assumes Silverstein's "pull it" means "blow it up."

Why?

[Abe Linkman]

14. "Bolo is making another unwarranted assumption"

Why?

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Unwarranted? Let's find out...

Let's Fisk your post, Abe:

If WTC 7 was "pulled", maybe WTC 1 & 2 were also.

The title of the thread. You make it clear that the word "pulled," or various forms of that word, is the key insight for you here. Someone "pulled" WTC 7 in some way, so the possibility is that WTC 1 & 2 were as well. Fine.

Larry Weinstein (whose co. operated the WTC complex) said (about WTC 7):

You've already corrected the Weinstein/Silverstein error. Silverstein said something about WTC 7, although you don't provide a link to this statement. You will be correcting that lapse, won't you?

"I remember getting a call from the, er, 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."

Ahh, so Mr. Silverstein said something about pulling in the context of the WTC 7 fire. As RH has pointed out above, "pull it" here means that the fire department will be pulling their efforts to extinguish the fire in WTC 7. This statement, then, is Silverstein accepting the inevitable property loss that was going to occur. What else could he do under the circumstances? So far, so good.

But then your title is confusing, because at this point, WTC 1 & 2 would have already collapsed. There would be no trying to battle the blazes in those buildings. So what is it you meant by featuring the word "pull" in your title?

As someone else pointed out, if the fire couldn't be contained, how could anyone get in to place explosives inside the building? And, WHO would have done that? Is the NYFD in the demolition business?

Explosives? Where in any of what you reported does explosives enter into the discussion? Now your featured use of the word "pulled" becomes clear - you think Silverstein gave permission to blow up WTC 7. That's the only way your statement makes sense, Abe. According to you, Silverstein gives permission to blow up the building, but since the fire can't be contained to allow the explosives to be planted...

In other words, explosives had to have already been in place inside the building. That so, why is it so hard to believe they would only have been pre-placed in WTC 7 but not WTC 1 & 2?

This has a degree of logic to it. Since the fire couldn't be contained, and if we accept the premise that the buildings were demolished with controlled explosives, you are correct that the explosives would have to have been in place before the attacks began on 9/11. And if WTC 7 was taken down by explosives placed beforehand, the possibility certainly exists that WTC 1 & 2 had explosives placed beforehand, too. I mean, why not?

What you have is an excellent argument as soon as you justify the major premise of explosives planted in the building. You try to glom this meaning onto Silverstein's statement by referring to WTC 7 being "pulled" in your title, when it's clear that Silverstein meant to pull the effort to contain the fire any longer. Only you are importing the idea of explosives into this statement. You meant to have the reader interpret Silverstein's "pull it" as "explode the WTC 7"; that's the reason you phrased the title the way you did.

Therefore, my assumption that you meant "pull it" as "blow it up" is a valid one indeed. Fully warranted, under the circumstances.

Remember, you need to provide us with a link to your story...

[Abe Linkman]

23. Since "Pull it" meant imploding WTC 6: why not 1, 2 & 7

http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt2.mp3

Silverstein says "pull it"; not "pull THEM" - and shortly afterwards, WTC 7 is imploded.

In December, 2001, on the above link, a worker at the site of WTC 6 is heard on the PBS Special saying: "They're gonna pull building 6". Then, you hear someone talking about how they have to be careful in how they bring down WTC 6.

Sounds to me like the phrase "pull it" is referring to an object; in this case WTC 7, then WTC 6. Both buildings were reduced to rubble. Fire doesn't seem to be a very plausible explanation for WTC 7, and no one argues that WTC 6 wasn't imploded.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Abe: Those two statements are separate in context

This topic is currently the subject of two threads (and was almost that of three), so you've missed my explanation of this. I'll be gracious and reprint it for you:

We have two possible meaning of the word "pull" in Silverstein's statement.

1) getting firefighters out of a dangerous building (the firefighting term)

2) blowing the building up (the demolition term)

In order to determine which of the two meanings the word "pull" has in Silverstein's statement, we must look at the contextual clues, which is a long-word way of saying: look at the general idea of what Silverstein is talking about.

a)He's talking to firefighters.
b)The firefighters are telling him the fire in the building can't be contained, making the building dangerous.
c)He's concerned about the tragic loss of life on that day already.

These are the contextual clues to let us know which meaning Silverstein intends. Now, what is the only rational choice of meaning for the word "pull", Abe?

Hint: It ain't 2.

You say: Sounds to me like the phrase "pull it" is referring to an object; in this case WTC 7, then WTC 6. However, the object Silverstein refers to, the singular noun that fits more closely with the other contextual clues, is the firefighting operation. Pull it. Silverstein immediately that the NYFD - not he - make the decision to "pull", and then they watch the building collapse. Not implode, collapse.

In December 2001, a worker speaks about pulling building 6. The contextual clues here lead the listener to select definition 2. Simple.

It's only because of the proximity of these statements in a documentary, that these two statements can ever become confusing. It's taken over a year for someone to notice that this misunderstanding was even possible. In the meantime, the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) investigation has continued apace, and making steady process for understanding just how it was that fire completed what the airplane and nearby building collapse impacts started. You might want to check out that thread for the links. The PDF file is the most recent report on the status of this scientific investigation into the building collapses, and there's no evidence that they have discovered that leads them to focus on controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

[Abe Linkman]

29. "They" were looking to validate a pre-determined conclusion

"there's no evidence that they have discovered that leads them to focus on controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7."

"I didn't see any evidence that explosives had been planted in the building, did you?" "Nope." "Takes care of that."

[RH]

32. Before posting that predetermined opinion

did you bother to study the .pdf material?

[Bolo Boffin]

35. If you would take the time to actually look at what they are doing...

...you will see that they have no pre-determined conclusion whatsoever.

They are scientists. They examine the actual evidence, develop a working hypothesis, test the evidence thoroughly, and adapt the hypothesis as needed, until they develop a theory consistent with all the evidence.

This is what scientists do. It's the hallmark of the skeptical mind. It's the way we learn from our mistakes and build stronger, safer buildings in the future.

Download the PDF and read what they are doing. Find out what a real investigation into the WTC looks like.

[OudeVanDagen]

37. FYI

" ... what a real investigation into the WTC looks like" will actually look just like any other.

Standard protocols or SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) for investigation of structural collapse have been used for decades .... just look at some old ... and very public ... structural collapse reports; Kansas City Hyatt Regency, or Kemper Arena for example.

If there are any distinct differences between the investigation of those old structural collapses and the forever ongoing WTC they are; a) the new technology available to investigators, b) the wealth of engineers, scientists and labs, c) funding, and d) the need to respond to greater public scrutiny.

[HarryLime]

38. Don't forget "e"

"If there are any distinct differences between the investigation of those old structural collapses and the forever ongoing WTC they are; a) the new technology available to investigators, b) the wealth of engineers, scientists and labs, c) funding, and d) the need to respond to greater public scrutiny."

You're forgetting e) The shipping out of the critical evidence before it has been properly examined.

http://members.fortunecity.com/911/hufschmid/PainfulQuestions_1.htm

[OudeVanDagen]

41. How many ...

... hookers must one see before he realizes he's in a red light district? Seriously .... long established protocols for structural collapse investigation require a review of all recovered items and the retention of adequate amounts of specific and random evidence samplings. Reports from the ongoing investigation process indicate protocol compliance ... good reading: Modulus Of Elasticity For World Trade Center Steel.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OudeVanDagen]

45. Geez Harry ....

... no disrespect, but you really need to read some reports. First ... forget FEMA ... they're just the plywood, bottled water, toilet paper and port-a-john folks that clean up after hurricanes ... need to jump through hoops to keep their funding and nod and say anything save their appointed jobs. Second ... take news reports with a grain of sand ... they just repeat what they're told .... too many publicity seeking photo-op know nothings made their scheduled very hurried appearances at WTC ... rattled their sabres ... and left ... the news was just doing their job and printed what was said .... even when it was wrong. You need to dig ... get past that BS ... you're damn good ... you're in the right church but sittin in the wrong pew ... Geeeez, wish you were around when McCarthy and Cohn were running rampant ruining lives ... just dig Harry ..

[slaveplanet]

53. GMAB

/and there's no evidence that they have discovered that leads them to focus on controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7.//

what and you just expect them to come out with it , had the found otherwise...you are a trusting soul.

can you explain all the reports by firemen and Dan Rather of explosions and bombs going off?...


www.soundwaves2000.com/rense/asx/rense01-20-04.asx

[Bolo Boffin]

55. Why don't you read some of what they're doing before you judge?

It's over in the NIST thread.

[slaveplanet]

56. still didnt

get your comments on the explosions and bombs....

www.soundwaves2000.com/rense/asx/rense01-20-04.asx

have a listen

[Bolo Boffin]

57. My comment on the explosions and bombs.

No explosions. No bombs. Misperceptions of the moment. The NIST report will bear this out, because they are relying on the facts, not misperception made by twisting the context of remarks separated by the space of two months.

[Abe Linkman]

58. "Pull it" means collapse the building.

Silverstein said "pull it, and then we watched the building collapse."
Three months later, WTC 6 (which didn't even have the very small fires noticed in WTC 7) was imploded...after a worker is recorded saying: "they're gonna pull building six."

More evidence that ALL of the WTC buildings collapsed as the result of planted explosions inside them. Not from airplanes hitting them, and not from fires.

MIHOP is the only explanation for 9-11 that makes any sense at all.

[Bolo Boffin]

60. You misquoted Silverstein.

Why did you do that?

You reported the quote as this: Silverstein said "pull it, and then we watched the building collapse."

Incorrect.

Silverstein actually said this: "I remember getting a call from the, er, 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." Uhhh...And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."

You omitted the phrase, "Uhhh...And they made that decision to pull..."

This further clarifies the context that I've been telling you. The firefighters made the decision, not to implode the building, but to get the firefighters out of the dangerous building. Then they do what? Blow up the building? Demolish the building?

No. They "watched the building collapse." They were passive in the building collapse. They only backed away from the fire, which was uncontainable. Had they remained fighting the fire, the building collapse would have killed more people.

This is not hard to understand. It's the clear meaning of Silverstein's words.

[Abe Linkman]

63. WHAT fire?

"They only backed away from the fire, which was uncontainable."

There were two small fires in WTC 7. Neither was "uncontainable."

[Bolo Boffin]

64. We are discussing the Silverman quote, correct?

This quote: ""I remember getting a call from the, er, 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." Uhhh...And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."

You see right up there at the beginning of that quote? The part where the fire department commander tells Silverman "that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire?" You see that part?

That uncontainable fire. Your notion of two small fires in WTC 7 is misinformed.

[Abe Linkman]

67. Silverstein's comments are disengenous

His statement sounds more like spin than anything else. WTC 7 had been evacuated earlier, and the only known person who perished in the demolition was a SS agent. So, the context of "pulling it" in relation to "such terrible loss of life" makes no sense. And, how would removing firemen from the building help save lives? From the tape, it isn't even clear that the FDCommander was talking about WTC 7. Silverstein implies that the collapse was immediate after the "pulling"; he doesn't say "we waited and watched until there came a time later on when the building just inexplicably collapsed in its own footprint in a free-fall that took only 3.2 seconds."

Clearly, Silverstein has "admitted" WTC 7 was imploded. He received an insurance settlement that was some $500 million more than the building's worth ($386 million, approximately).

Further evidence of the meaning of "pulling it" is the use of the same exact expression three months later when WTC 6 was imploded.

The small fires on the two different floors of WTC 7 didn't cause the sudden 3.2 second collapse of the building. And, just as the firemen in WTC 1&2 didn't believe the fires in THOSE buildings were capable of causing them to collapse (and indeed they didn't...cause the collapse of either one)...there's no reason to think they would have felt differently about WTC 7 (even after 1&2 had collapsed).

We don't even know the circumstances surrounding the alleged call from the FDCommander to Mr. Silverstein. That call may be just as bogus as the ones allegedly made by the woman Ted Olson says was his wife.

Silverstein is a very smart, very savvy man. His statement on PBS must be taken as spin. He was intentionally vague and his true intent
can only be guessed at. It's my belief that Mr. Silverstein was thinking about his financial stake in WTC 7 at the time of the alleged conversation with the FDCommander. Mr. Silverstein knew that the building had already been evacuated, so he was unaware (at that time)
of the manslaughter which took the life of a SS Agent when WTC 7 was imploded ("pulled").

[NecessaryOnslaught]

68. Four members of the NYPD bomb squad

also died in WTC 7.

"The second collapse sent debris onto 7 World Trade, a building that housed the NYPD bomb squad, which works closely with the Crime Scene Unit. Four of Blozis’ coworkers would die there."

Nothing to see here.... :tinfoilhat:

"Also lost in the 7 World Trade Center building was Capt. Anthony Infante of New York’s Port Authority Police Department. He had also attended the Quantico class with McCombe and Blozis."

http://www.blockislandtimes.com/News/2002/0216/Front_Page/005.html

[RH]

71. "Also lost in the 7 ...."?

"Anthony Infante Jr., the husband of Joyce Infante, was a police inspector for the Port Authority Police Department. He was helping people escape from Tower One when he was killed Sept. 11."

http://www.dailyrecord.com/news/911/091102-widows.html

"The 21 year veteran of the PAPD, rushed to the towers to help in the rescue effort, making it inside the North Tower in time to calm people as they descended. He was seen going up the stairs, aiding victims, calmly assuring people that there was a way out, and giving his coat to one man to protect him from burning materials."

http://our.homewithgod.com/mkcathy/heroes2.html#AI

[Bolo Boffin]

74. Oh, brother.

Don't we already have threads on which gate Flight 11 departed from? Now we're going to have threads disputing whether people died because different newspapers reported them dying in different buildings.

Before long, we will be regaled with the evidence that the WTC buildings were never built at all (it's an impossibility! 110 stories with no pillared supports from wall to core? Tell me another one.... It was all holograms and CGI. If it was there, it would still be there, because they were "built" to withstand airplane impacts. The whole "WTC buildings were there" falls apart.)

[Bolo Boffin]

76. ;-)

[DeadBroke]

75. I hope that

the message and link isn't offered suggesting those officers were responsible for planting or activating explosives.

Tours with the EOD (Explosive and Ordinance Disposal) is not at all unusual for officers assigned to ESU (Emergency Services Unit) of the NYPD (New York Police Department). A rare breed of men and women ESU does everything from elevator entrapments (thousands each week) to hostage situations to talking down bridge jumpers to to harbor incidents to subway derailments - you name it, they do it.

#7 was in fact one of several "sub-stations" for the 1st Precinct, which is about a dozen blocks north near the Holland Tunnel - I think it's actual address is Ericsson Street, near Varick. (Another sub-station is near Wall and Pearl Streets, and another near the Ferry slips).

ESU operated out of #7 due to space problems at the ancient 1st Precinct and because it could rapidly deploy itself with it's specialized equipment very easily north via the Avenues, up the old Westside Highway, or around the tip and up the East River Drive. It could also rapidly deploy into Brooklyn via the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel a few blocks south. #7 also put ESU close to City Hall and close to nearly all the City, State, and Federal buildings. It has a service record for also responding into NJ as needed.

The 'Bomb Squad' division of ESU has units posted all over the city; near the UN (United Nations) as part of the 17th Precinct, for example. It's not at all unusual - it's probably required - for ESU officers to have training in the disposal of explosive devices, hazardous materials, hostage situations, and in high pressure situations with the mentally disturbed with domestic violence. EOD-ESU-NYPD is also ready and staged near all the major embassies and consulates.

Having received training and assignments in bomb disposal should not suggest or imply any wrongdoing. Scores of police officers and firefighters recieve this type of training. There are of course different levels of training. The average foot patrolman or firefighter receives very basic 1st response training, the look but don't touch type that is taught by local department training officers; but with rank and responsibility comes more training. Advanced EOD or 'bomb' isn't taught at too many places. A police officer or firefighter can only receive it from the federal government; FBI, ATF or DOD. It's just not on any college curriculum.

Personally, I received my EOD training as a GS-5 Federal Firefighter in the '70s at two Army bases. I was later required to receive a basic as a volunteer firefighter, and needed to attain an advanced for my terms as Lieutenant and Captain. (I also needed to do the same for hazardous materials, bloodbourne pathogens, etc).

I sure hope that no one is suggesting that an assignment to the 'bomb squad' meant these officers were engaged in some evil plan to destroy these buildings.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

77. Another account of where'd he go

"The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone"There was nothing there but rubble, "Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.

"http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

So the machine shop in sub-level c is gone, turned to rubble(that magical jet fuel i suppose) and yet Vito Deleo and David Williams manage to escape with no injuries, help with the evacuation, walk two blocks, return and then die in the collapse.

"Vito Deleo and David Williams helped tenants find their way safely out of the building and were themselves two blocks away from the Twin Towers when they made the unselfish decision to return to continue to help with the evacuation. All four are still missing but will not be forgotten."

http://www.local94.com/

More from chiefengineer on the destructive power of the magical jet fuel.


"The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. "There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything" he said.

They decided to ascend two more levels to the building's lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil" and lying on the floor. "They got us again," Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building's structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building."

:nuke:

[Bolo Boffin]

69. Well, what can I say to that?

I think a little Prince is in order...

Dearly beloved
We are gathered here today
2 get through this thing called life

Electric word life
It means forever and that’s a mighty long time
But I’m here 2 tell u
There’s something else
The afterworld

A world of never ending happiness
U can always see the sun, day or night

So when u call up that shrink in beverly hills
U know the one - dr everything’ll be alright
Instead of asking him how much of your time is left
Ask him how much of your mind, baby

’cuz in this life
Things are much harder than in the afterworld
In this life
You’re on your own

And if de-elevator tries 2 bring u down
Go crazy - punch a higher floor

[RH]

70. Your question is stupid

"how would removing firemen from the building help save lives?"

Presumably because their time and energy could then be devoted to doing so.

[Abe Linkman]

72. Your response sounds like something bush might say.

There were apparently lives to be saved in the building. Several people have made the discovery that there were actually some people whose lives were lost inside WTC 7, other than the SS Agent I had read about.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. How rude

Those people whose lives were lost inside WTC 7, the ones being "discovered", died when one of the other buildings collapsed into 7, not when 7 collapsed. At least read what the articles say, Abe.

Have you considered that removing firefighters from a dangerous building might save their lives? Those are the lives Silverstein wished to save when he suggested that the fire department "pull" their firefighting operation.

[LARED]

78. He has considered it

and seems to have rejected it. Even though it would be very difficult to interpret Silverstein's comments any other way.

From post 67

WTC 7 had been evacuated earlier, and the only known person who perished in the demolition was a SS agent. So, the context of "pulling it" in relation to "such terrible loss of life" makes no sense. And, how would removing firemen from the building help save lives?

[OudeVanDagen]

65. "There were two ...

... small fires in WTC 7. Neither was 'uncontainable'."

Two?

Small?

That's NOT what the spalling on the granite panels ... or curtain wall fenestrations ... demonstrate.

[OudeVanDagen]

66. Where's the ....

... explosive residue? We can find explosive residue from WW2 in Berlin ... in London ... in NYC from FALN bombings ... in Queens at LaGuardia from the Armenian bombing ... and so on ... and so on ... and so on ... WHY no residues WTC?

[DeadBroke]

15. No water

From the official FDNY reports published in NYC area newspapers, and from unofficial transcripts of FDNY radio transmissions that were compiled from tapes made by fire buffs off their radio scanners no actual firefighting efforts were made at #7.

The sprinkler system, which was fed from water tanks just below the roof, drained the water tanks dry. The tanks could not be normally replenished from ground level water mains as the west water grid was damaged by the earlier collapse of the towers. The FD siamese connections for the sprinklers and standpipes were on the south face of the building and could not be reached due to the debris from the tower collapses. FDNY - Brooklyn based companies - conducted floor to floor searches of #7 for employees, but did not have water available for firefighting until just before the collapse of #7. That water only became available after FDNY deployed 5"LDH (five inched large diameter supply hoses) from the eastern water main grids.

After the sprinklers ran dry in #7 the fires burned and grew in size for several hours. NYC area news outlets have printed and broadcasted excerpts of reports showing that the steel framing members near the fire floors in #7 had spheoidizing - a molecular condition from prolonged exposure to heat, and that the steel below had stretcher strains, or Luders Lines - which appear when steel is subjected to pressures or strains beyond it's yield point.

"Pull it" is an old, pre-portable radio firefighting term. In order to get firemen out from inside burning buildings the manpower outside would pull on the hoses to signal the men inside to get out.

Before #7 fell FDNY had estimated that 300 firefighters were killed in the collapse of the towers, but feared more. Actual numbers were unavailable then because the first plane collision happened during the shift change and many firefighters that were technically off duty responded.

[LARED]

16. Thanks

for the history lesson on fire fighter jargon. I looked in vain to find out what "pull it" meant.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Further elucidating Silverstein's remark!

Silverstein connects the terrible loss of life to the term, "pull it". Why lose more lives if the fire can't be contained? Pull it. Save the firemen in harm's way.

Thanks for this information, DeadBroke.

[Abe Linkman]

24. Even if it turns out that Silverstein is a poor communicator...

and that when he said "pull it", he was merely giving orders to the FD (he must have a lot of clout)... that wouldn't change the fact that shortly thereafter, WTC 7 inexplicably collapsed as though it had been imploded. Oddly, the same term "pull it" was used two months later in connection with the decision to use explosives to bring down WTC 6.

The important question is what caused WTC 7 to collapse. The most plausible explanation is that it was due to a controlled explosion.

[nostamj]

25. The LEASTplausible explanation

is a controlled explosion.

bombs before the attacks

or

bombs planted after

neither come close to passing any sniff test.

ridiculous.

[Abe Linkman]

26. Why?

For many people, the only explanation that counts is the "Wacky Cave Man & Subsequent Real Hot Fires" Conspiracy Theory. Ridiculous.

[RH]

33. "neither come close to passing any sniff test."

i.e. evidence.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. NIST begs to differ with you

Please check out post #27 for the answer to questions you raise here.

The most plausible explanation of the WTC 7 collapse is most assuredly NOT a controlled explosion.

[Abe Linkman]

30. Any evidence that NIST did what they would do ....

when they investigate other building collapses where explosives may have been used?

How did NIST eliminate the possibility of explosives having been used?

[Bolo Boffin]

36. There is no evidence that suggests explosives were used.

They haven't eliminated it at all - they are examining the evidence and following where it leads. So far it hasn't led them anywhere close to hypothesizing that explosives were used.

Read the PDF file. Find out what a real investigation looks like.

[DeadBroke]

39. I'll just add

that the SIZE (and number) of the columns and beams used in #7 would IMHO have needed lots, LOTS of explosives. A small, by NYC building standards #16-36 steel column, which weighs in at about 15 lbs per linear foot, has a 1" thick web and a 7" flange. The columns (hundreds of them) used at #7 were MUCH larger.

[Abe Linkman]

42. Have "they" examined the evidence that was carted away?

If so, when and how did they do it?

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Go read the PDF, Abe.

All of your questions are answered there.

[RH]

34. when he said "pull it"?

Please remind us.

When exactly did he say "pull it"?

[slaveplanet]

51. Silverstien-

on 9/11/2001

demolition man bringing down wtc#6- mid december 2001

same documentary.

www.soundwaves2000.com/rense/asx/rense01-20-04.asx

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RH]

54. According to Rense

the Silverstein statement came after FEMA and the SCE conducted an extensive and costly investigation.

So what exactly then was the context?

Was his intention to refute the investigation or was he speaking carelessly or was he speaking in general terms?

Did anybody read him his rights?

Has he since commented?

[Abe Linkman]

59. Silverstein's comments come right before WTC 7 collapsed

Silverstein says "pull it" and that he then watched the building collapse. Sounds like the connection was between "pulling it" and the subsequent collapse.

The only fires in WTC 7 were two small ones, hardly an inferno. The fact that Mr. Silverstein profited financially as the result of WTC 7 (and the other buildings he had the leases on) raises a lot of suspicion about his motivations for saying "pull it".

[Bolo Boffin]

61. Again you omit the fire department's decision to "pull"

I hope this isn't going to become a habit.

What is your evidence that Silverstein's comments "come right before WTC 7 collapsed"? It isn't only this recap by Silverstein, is it? You do have records showing when Silverstein was called by the fire department?

[RH]

62. Who decided to "pull it" ?

Was Mr. Silverstein in charge of the Fire Department?

The context would appear to be clear enough: The Fire Department had a big problem, certain priorities to determine, the ramifications of which would affect the building, so they consulted the owner.

So is there something wrong with that?

[Robb]

21. "Pull it" doesn't mean "plant explosives"?

What a surprise. Well, that's problematic to this entire business. :)

[DulceDecorum]

31. Verifiable Links please?

Thank you.

[RH]

40. FEMA Report, section 5.5.3: Fires at WTC 7

Read it.

e.g.

"It appeared that water on site was limited due to a 20-inch broken water main in Vesey Street. Although WTC 7 was sprinklered, it did not appear that there would have been a sufficient quantity of water to control the growth and spread of the fires on multiple floors. In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities."

[DeadBroke]

44. Answers

My sources include the archives of my NYC area newspapers which, due to their subscription procedures for access, prohibit links. If I include one of those newspaper archive links in a post it will not load, and will ask for a username and password. I've tried numerous times, used the advice I've received in PMs, but can't link those archives.

Another source is the newsletters and other puplications put out by the Council Of Allied Builders. These are for members, only come hardcopy, and are not web publications. First about the Council: It was formed in the late 1800s by Manhattan builders to negotiate wage agreements with the Unions and to settle disputes. It grew to include all the 5 boros and the outer counties; Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester and entered into reciprocal agreements with NJ. Over time it was responsible for establishing apprenticeship and benefit programs, and the Council probably goes un-noticed until it's PAL - Political Action League endorses a candidate. It's funded by an annual dues paid by the builders, and by an hourly assesment taken from all union members paychecks.

In the 80s, under new leadership, it began assisting workers with drug, alcohol, and family problems, began the active recruitment of minorities for union membership, and started investigating worker injuries and jobsite accidents. As a NYC Union Ironworker involved in incidents worthy of their investigation I found that while they obtain reports from OSHA, NY State Office of Standards, NYC's Building Department, FDNY, NYPD and etc etc they do their own legwork and investigation - usually with a grant, depending on the type of incident, to an engineering firm, loss investigation company, college department and so on.

That was what the Council did in 93 with the truck bombing at the Trade Center, and what did they did for 9/11 collapses. Their newsletters have always included summaries of the investigation, and as it nears it's end some excerpts are finally finding their way into the local newspapers - which have been more focused on plans for the rebuilding and monument than on why the buildings fell.

As for my firematic explanation of "pull" all I can say is that I've been a volunteer firefighter since the 60s, spent a couple years as a paid firefighter, and just finished a couple terms as a line officer. "Pull" is one of those terms that's hung around. Four years ago, as Captain I commanded a daytime fire at an automotive dealership with a bow-string truss roof along a roadway with inadequate water supply. Prone to collapse from thermal loads I needed to evac interior crews from below that roof and ordered them out. In accordance with firefighting tradition and our fire department's strict 'carved in stone' standard operating procedures I gave the order to my operations officer; "Pull this job." He activated special evac tones on the portable radios, gave verbal commands and signalled our pump operators. Each pump operator in turn climbed into their cabs and pulled the air horn chains, just as the oldtimers would pull on their steam whistles or before that, would pull on the old riveted leather hoses.

As for my source to the number of firefighters feared lost I can only remember back to 9/11 where my fire department was mobilized for response to NYC. We are part of a county and state mutual aid system and were asked to assign one of our four companies. It was staged for several hours in Fort Lee, ready to cross the bridge when ordered. All during the day I received numerous updates of the situation, updates of where my county units were operating in NYC, and I also had to deploy local units to federal offices, powerplants, electrical and gas distribution centers for standby. FYI: I was also charged with finding adequate commercial freezer space for morgue use.

I value the information posted in the links that have been provided by others, and sincerely wish I could enjoy their success.

[slaveplanet]

47. let the listener decide

www.soundwaves2000.com/rense/asx/rense01-20-04.asx

[Bolo Boffin]

50. Response to #20, #49, and this post

A lot of the timing issues and the spread of the fire will be covered in the NIST investigation, which has its own thread right now.

The WTC North Tower went through several apparant flareups and damp downs. The firefighters optimistic about controlling the blaze were probably speaking during one of the dampdowns. The fire eventually took the building.

[Courtney_P]

79. Don't forget the wingd monkeys that flew out the west wing window that day

Am I the only one who thinks these conspiracy theories are insane? There is so much to use against Bush, why do we resort to tinfoil and black helicopters?

[BassettWilliams]

80. ... and here's some SOLID information

from a FDNY Fire Chief - and lots more:

http://ericdarton.net/afterwords/fireandair.html

[Lithos]

82. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

L-

[nomatrix]

81. Welcome to DU

Courtney. This forum has posted some excellent theories on the collapse of any of the buildings. None so far have been blamed on winged monkeys or black helicopters or tinfoil hats. Was that meant to be a put-down? You will see exactly what you want to see.
A democratic society allows for a difference of opinion. What is hoped from this exchange is revelations uncovered. If you read the posts above:

A firefighter/iron workers experience and knowledge in relationship to FDNY and what they have to face with high-rise fires.

Abe brought up Larry Silverstein.
From Newsweek 2002
"Since September 11, New York real-estate mogul Larry Silverstein, 70, has been in the headlines as the man who "owns" a 99-year lease on all the space at the World Trade Center and is now at the center of the debate over what to rebuild there.
What Silverstein actually owns is an 11% share of that lease for which he paid about $US14m ($25m). Using cash from other investors (who own the other 89%) and hundreds of millions more in borrowings, he bought the lease in late July 2001, from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Silverstein, who enjoys a reputation as a skilled, tough landlord, planned to do such a good job maximizing individual rental payments from the Trade Center's tenants, while keeping expenses down, that they'd end up with much more than the annual cost of paying off the debt and a $US120m-a-year payment due to the Port Authority.
But when the attacks came barely six weeks after the deal had closed, Silverstein's investment suddenly turned on one thing: insurance. How well was he covered? By the evening of September 11, Silverstein had begun talking to lawyers and orchestrating what has become an audacious legal and public-relations campaign aimed at getting him and his investors as much as possible of an extra $US3.55bn in insurance – a fight that will help determine who rebuilds Ground Zero and how."
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/0/6359a7d7e4ac80d7ca256bfe001f6027?OpenDocument

This is just from the WTC 1 & 2. He has collected on 7. There are questions here.

Sept. 11th hearings are still in the discovery stages. They have asked for more time.

I come back here to learn. There are others, like yourself who challenge why this seems to be a "conspiracy". It was. No one person committed this action. More than one person involved makes it a conspiracy. When you consider the "Intel failures" of WMD's in Iraq, for myself, I keep the door open to information that is still developing. It may alway remain a "theory" of who is behind the tragedy.

[Lavachequirit]

83. It's the cover-up that gives it away: if they have nothing to hide...

Why has such a huge effort gone into avoiding/preventing any real investigation?

Compare the painstaking reconstructions normally done in civilian aviation crashes, or even bridge failures, or for example the space shuttle. What possible legitimate reason can there be for handling of the WTC debris? If the Columbia can be reconstructed scrap by tiny scrap, why was such a low standard of preservation of evidence deemed acceptable where 3000 people were killed?

Are we really to believe that a handful of volunteer investigators from ASCE with limited access to the site and almost no access to blueprints or engineering diagrams, and preserving some 250 pieces of scrap from the immense wreckage can be considered is a valid starting point, rather than the forceful and immediate preemption of any genuine inquiry?

[OudeVanDagen]

84. handful of volunteer investigators

"Are we really to believe that a handful of volunteer investigators from ASCE with limited access to the site and almost no access to blueprints or engineering diagrams, and preserving some 250 pieces of scrap from the immense wreckage can be considered is a valid starting point, rather than the forceful and immediate preemption of any genuine inquiry?"

You are very VERY badly misinformed ....

[Lavachequirit]

85. You are very VERY badly misinformed ....

Very very bad then am I - but isn't being badly misinformed the same as being well informed? In any case, you imply that you have some actual information that would cause me to change my mind. Do you plan to provide this life-changing information, or is it such common knowledge that you will just leave me with this dismissive veryverybad business?

The NOVA documentary follows the team from the American Society of Civil Engineers who formed the FEMA/ASCE "Building Performance Study" (http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtcreport.htm). At that crucial phase of the post-collapse investigation, they were only grudgingly given access to the site, and were indeed volunteers. There was nobody else even attempting a forensic investigation at the time, and the vaunted NIST investigation did not even begin until after the FEMA report, and long after 99+% of the wreckage was disposed of. And nowhere beyond the ~250 pieces saved have I seen any tabulation of data of any sort of testing of that 99.5%, nothing to support your claim that some hallowed SOP somehow examined every scrap. It didn't bloody happen, that's why!

If you have evidence to the contrary (dogmatic assertions don't count - show me some documentation) I would be tremendously interested to see it.

The Science Committee of the House of Representatives
held a meeting March 6, 2002 to discuss the investigation of
the World Trade Center collapse. Their report concluded that
the investigation was “hampered.” One problem was that
clean-up crews arrived the same day and immediately began
disposing of the rubble. The result was:
ìSome of the critical pieces of steel ... were gone
before the first ever reached the site.î
When investigators finally arrived at the site they
discovered they were subservient to the clean-up crews:
ì...the lack of authority of investigators to impound
pieces of steel for examination before they were
recycled led to the loss of important pieces of
evidence...î
Why was the investigation given such a low priority? Or
should that question be phrased: Why was the disposal of
rubble given first priority? Were New York residents simply
too shocked by the attack and too concerned about finding
survivors to care about saving the rubble for scientists?
According to an article on December 25, 2001, the New
York Times asked city officials about the destruction of the
rubble:
ìI wish I had more time to
inspect steel structure and
save more pieces before
the steel was recycled.î
Professor Astaneh-Asl of
Berkeley, at the
Committee on Science
hearing, March 6, 2002
http://members.aol.com/erichuf/PainfulQuestions_1.pdf

If you have evidence to the contrary (dogmatic assertions don't count - show me some documentation) I would be tremendously interested to see it.




“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the
U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
Franklin Roosevelt

You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic condition of life, to be required to violate
your own identity. At some time, every creature which lives must do so. It is the ultimate shadow, the defeat of
creation; this is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life. Everywhere in the universe.
-- P.K. Dick / Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968)

[OudeVanDagen]

86. "... nobody else even attempting a forensic investigation ..."

Geez, don't get around much do ya?


"... some hallowed SOP ... "

Oh yeah, you betcha!

[Lavachequirit]

87. Oh yeah, you betcha!

So you know some English colloquialisms, that's nice...

And I must assume that your terse little pellet of a reply means that you can't really document what you claim, exactly as I imagined. It's that endearing, oddly Bushian quality of yours assuming that really puzzles me, that air of assuming that everyone finds your enigmatic perjorative burps as meaningful as you do, and that we are required to give you the benefit of the doubt as being very VERY wise and to be taken at your word and assumed right just because - well I'm not really sure. Just because you have such a high opinion of your own opinion I suppose.

It's wisdom on the cheap, truth by attitude without having to be bothered with the messy details (where the D*vil is rumored to to reside); but without the *fnord* details it's all just empty posturing and you know it.

It's been fun chatting, have a nice Superbowl Sunday.

[RH]

88. "Messy details" were dealt with

at some considerable length on many previous threads.

Those who have previously contributed are not going to want to repeat it all whenever an ignorant idiot turns up.

Search the archive.

[OudeVanDagen]

89. " ... some English colloquialisms ... "

My English is pretty good ... over 70 years of practice!

Yo! You needs to chill ... check some 411 on old collapses ... you'll see our "hallowed" SOPs .... PEACE ... OVD in da house ... livin large ... in charge ... Outa here!

[Lavachequirit]

90. OK, I guess that was a reply...

At least in the sense that it was created by hitting the reply button - followed by random hipster slang.

Already got lots of 411, thanks, but not nearly enough 420 to make sense of your claim that "hallowed SOP" (or was that SOB?) were followed. After much looking I find nothing to support your claim that these SOPs were followed, though apparently the SOBs were; and I'm left having Cheshire Cat conversations with a hip-hop 70 something who makes less sense the more he says...


I wish I had more time to inspect steel structure and save more pieces before the steel was recycled. ... The main impediments to my work were and still are:
1. Not having a copy of the engineering drawings and design and construction documents.
2. Not having copies of the photographs and videotapes that various agencies might have taken during and immediately after the collapse.

Testimony of

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl
Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
Before the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives

March 6, 2002



That's a pretty SOPpy excuse for a real investigation all right.

Oh well off to chill - lucky for me it's mid-winter!!

:toast:



" "Liberal" comes from the Latin liberalis, which means pertaining to a free man. In politics, to be liberal is to want to extend democracy through
change and reform. One can see why that word had to be erased from our political lexicon.”
Gore Vidal, from his book The Decline and Fall of the American Empire

[RH]

91. More time.

A real investigation is not complete.

See
NIST Testing Controversial Theory of WTC Collapse!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=6871&mesg_id=6871

[OudeVanDagen]

92. Lavachequirit ...

... lets assume you're 100% correct. That would mean scores of professionals and thousands of volunteers under the watchful eye of the world's media ALL conspired to hide the truth and to nod like sheep when told to. A quote here ... a quote there ... always out of context ... doesn't begin to represent the efforts and professionalism on 9-11 .... the days and weeks after ... and that of today .. or tomorrow ... or next week.

The largest catastrophic structural incident naturally triggered multi-agency investigations and attracted the expertise of the world's best structural people ... their affiliates .... their resources. People who can tell leaf from fruit ... and who spent countless hours ... in the worst conditions ... examining each and every piece of recovered metal .... following agreed procedures and protocols ... and reporting on same.

It's quite clear you have not spend one minute reading anything current on this collapse or even on prior collapse investigations. Had you done so you would understand the policy ... the process ... the protocols ... the SOPs .... call it what you may ... that enables families to have closure and an understanding of what happened.

I very strongly suggest you take a few moments to read old collapse investigations .... start with the KC Hyatt Regency ... read the collapse report ... read the litigation ... then you'll see that there ARE polices, procedures, SOPs ... and that people still care and that people know what it is to do the right thing.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

93. Your rhetoric is touching

"... in the worst conditions ... examining each and every piece of recovered metal"
..........

"Indeed, critical evidence of how the trade center collapsed may be lost already. In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, haulers began to cut up and truck pieces of the towers' 300,000 tons (272,000 tonnes) of structural steel to recycling centers because the pieces purportedly did not hold any evidence important to criminal investigators."

"According to a report in the New York Times, city officials who were focused on recovery efforts overlooked the possibility that the debris could hold clues of interest to forensic engineers. A request to the city by ASCE to study the structural steel did not reach officials UNTIL ALMOST THREE WEEKS AFTER THE COLLAPSE."

http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1017/news_1-2.html


October 4, 2001
"Additionally, two recent bid awards were made to scrap processing firms to recycle 50,000 tons of large structural beams. Under the terms of those awards, the beams will be taken from the World Trade Center site, loaded onto river barges and sent directly to the purchasers' facilities for recycling. These two scrap processors have already offloaded 20,000 tons of structural steel beams shipped by barge directly from ground zero to their facilities."

". As of this date, there are only two legal pathways by which scrap metal moves from ground zero of the World Trade Center. First, light iron and non-ferrous materials are being sent to the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island for forensic review. After the authorities have released the materials they are transferred to a scrap processor under contract with the New York City Department of Sanitation that existed prior to September 11, 2001. Second, two contracts for 25,000 tons each of heavy steel were awarded on a bid basis on September 26, 2001. These materials are being loaded onto barges for delivery to the winning bidders."

http://www.steel.org/news/innews/pr_prnewswire10_04_01.ht

:nopity:

[OudeVanDagen]

94. The Bottom Line

is I know what I did .... what I saw .... what my colleages have done ... are still doing. Believe what you want ... time will tell ...

[FredrickDouglass]

95. This is why Chomsky never addresses Conspiracy Claims

Just the idea of conspiracy is so tainted in the American mind that to even suggest it, removes all credibility. It was said to be a conspiracy theory about Nixon and Watergate, before the evidence came forward and people started talking.
The official line about what happened on September 11th never made much sense to me, but people simply aren't prepared to accept anything but the official line. And that's really the only issue here. It's not one of evidence. There have been more than enough holes and inconsistencies in the current story to have long ago discredited it.

If we simply adjusted our perspective and say most of America was extremely skeptical about what we were being told, there would be a resultant skepticism in the media and all of the bullshit stories we got about passports being found in the rubble and Bin Laden being blamed the next day and Qurans being found in hotel planning rooms, all of that shit would have been scrutinized in an entirely different light. Fires reaching impossible temperatures. Theres so much.

But it would have required the populace to be in a completely different mindset of skepticism, from the beginning. And as a population, the level of trust we have in authority figures is high. Thus that trust can be reflected in the media. If, from the beginning, the people were saying "HELL NO!" to the official story, the media's slant would have changed. More skepticism and investigative reporting would have been done. Everything that has been said thus far, all the evidence that has been gathered, all of the holes that still exist, the whole story could just as easily be one of skepticism and doubt instead of trust and regret about "failures".

It's all a matter of what perspective one wishes to assume. But to pretend like the evidence is anywhere near solid is to deny reality. And as of right now, I haven't seen solid proof to unequivocally conclude that it was an inside job. But common sense tells me that an awful lot of low probability things had to all defy the odds that day for it not to have been an inside thing

[RH]

96. For you

it may be a matter of what perspective one wishes to assume.

If, that is, in order to uphold your preciously vaunted skepticism you prefer not to hear from those who were around to see for themselves.

For those more willing to hear them out it is a matter of evidence.

In the mean time I have not yet seen any testimony to the effect that any evidence was planted; nobody at all has yet "talked" to that effect and as has been discussed here ad infinitum the question of impossible temperatures is a 'straw man' argument. The notion plays no part except as hollow propaganda.

[Abe Linkman]

97. It is all rather odd, isn't it. Not one peep from the perps.

"In the mean time I have not yet seen any testimony to the effect that any evidence was planted; nobody at all has yet "talked" to that effect"

I'm as puzzled as you are. Maybe peeps from the perps are being reduced to book form, and that is why we haven't heard anything as of yet. They want to sell books, so they aren't gonna talk beforehand.

The "not-a-peep-from-the-perps" notion plays no part of propaganda. It is merely a marketing strategy to hype the book.