Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

[LashL]

You seem to have a problem with pronouns since "pull it" couldn't possibly refer to a plural antecedent, such as a group of firefighters.

This is incorrect. Note that "a group [of anything]" is singular, not plural.

 

[WildCat]

Red, I thought you weren't MIHOP?

Red is MIHOP all the way.

 

[peguyjaures]

Plural antecedent

You seem to have a problem with pronouns since "pull it" couldn't possibly refer to a plural antecedent, such as a group of firefighters.

Well, "it" as in "a group of firefighters"? - you just inadvertently named one possible singular antecedent!!!!
Are you that much grammatically challenged?
"a group of firefighters" can be considered singular. Example here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3881195&page=1
"A group of 9/11 firefighters and victims' family members with eyes on derailing Republican Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign is close to a decision..."
Notice "is", not "are"? What does this imply? Singular or plural?


Even more probably, the implicit antecedent could have been a singular abstract noun, as in "the search and rescue effort", or "the firefighting operation". What would be wrong with this?

Since we don't know the beginning of the conversation, we will never know if LS meant a brigade, a firefighter battalion, the group of firefighters involved in the operation, the effort, the operation, whatever: there are MANY possible antecedents that would make perfect sense...

And still: "Pull it" is by no means equivalent to "Pull it down"...

So I have several options to back up my grammatically correct interpretation of LS's sentence. You still don't have a single one, unless you are able to show us at least one clear instance of the transitive verb "to pull" being used with the same meaning as the phrasal verb "to pull down". Remember: not "pull in". Not "pull down". Just "to pull"... I wonder why you find it so difficult to produce ONE single example, although you want us to believe that "to pull" is common in CD slang...
Well, it's so common that even Google cannot find a single instance. Wow!

(Troofer sites excluded, of course!)

 

[RedIbis]

This is incorrect. Note that "a group [of anything]" is singular, not plural.

Wrong. It depends on whether or not the collective noun is acting as singular entity or as individuals.

The committee has added their signatures.

The committee has reached its decision.

This is not the same as "pull it" to describe whatever firefighters might have been in the bldg.

In other words, if the bldg was in danger of collapse, would a concerned commander say, "get it out of the bldg"? or would he say "get them out of the bldg"?

No one would use the singular pronoun in that situation. Here's an example of where "pull it" is in reference to a bldg being imploded by CD:

Well, you just pull it away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away from the building. It can be done.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Reading is fundamental. Let's replace "it" with what "It" refers to.

Let's pull the firefighting/rescue effort.

Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth? - Chris Tucker

 

[WildCat]

No one would use the singular pronoun in that situation. Here's an example of where "pull it" is in reference to a bldg being imploded by CD:

You don't get it Red. Do you think "peel" is a CD term also?

 

[peguyjaures]

Well, RedIbis, you still have hard time understanding phrasal verbs, don't you?

Let's have a closer look at your example:

Well, you just pull it away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away from the building. It can be done.

Bolding yours... Now let's try something else:

Well, you just pull it away, you peel itoff. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and itwill pull itselfcompletely away from the building. It can be done.

You see? "To pull away". "To pull oneself away". Two nice instances of phrasal verbs. Still no instance of the simple transitive verb "to pull" being used as "to pull down" (or "to pull away" for that matter...), as in "pull it!"

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I also like the notion that a conspiracy rest on this argument. I wonder if LS lies awake at night thinking "Damn! If I had just said them instead of it each time I was asked, those meddling kids would have never caught on to my plot!"

This one is about as comical as the evidence of a conspiracy because bush used the world "saw" to refer to watching the TV news about the WTC first hit.

 

[LashL]

Wrong. It depends on whether or not the collective noun is acting as singular entity or as individuals.

The committee has added their signatures.

The committee has reached its decision.

Once again, you are incorrect. "The committee" cannot add "their" signatures. Only "members (plural) of the committee" or "committee members" (plural) can add "their" signatures (plural).

Your second example is correct: i.e., the committee (singular) can only reach "its" decision (singular). The committee (singular) cannot, of course, reach "their" (plural) decision.

In any event, we are not talking about "the committee". We are talking about your example and your error when you said that "pull it" cannot refer to "a group" of firefighters.

You are wrong.

 

[RedIbis]

Well, RedIbis, you still have hard time understanding phrasal verbs, don't you?

Let's have a closer look at your example:


Bolding yours... Now let's try something else:



You see? "To pull away". "To pull oneself away". Two nice instances of phrasal verbs. Still no instance of the simple transitive verb "to pull" being used as "to pull down" (or "to pull away" for that matter...), as in "pull it!"

It appears you are the one who requires review of both your understanding of particles or phrasal verbs and reading comprehension.

The instances that I quoted are quite clearly not particles. They are not idiomatic, the prepositions are quite clearly related to the direction, as is the pronoun quite clearly refering a singular antecedent.

Nice try though.

 

[LashL]

I also like the notion that a conspiracy rest on this argument. I wonder if LS lies awake at night thinking "Damn! If I had just said them instead of it each time I was asked, those meddling kids would have never caught on to my plot!"

This one is about as comical as the evidence of a conspiracy because bush used the world "saw" to refer to watching the TV news about the WTC first hit.

Yes, the idea that twoofer arguments are reduced to the kind of mental gymnastics that they have to do in order to find something nefarious in the use of the word "it" is rather amusing, in a twisted sort of way.

 

[RedIbis]

Once again, you are incorrect. "The committee" cannot add "their" signatures. Only "members (plural) of the committee" can add "their" signatures (plural).

Your second example is correct: i.e., the committee (singular) can only reach "its" decision (singular). The committee (singular) cannot, of course, reach "their" (plural) decision.

In any event, we are not talking about "the committee". We are talking about your example and your error when you said that "pull it" cannot refer to "a group" of firefighters.

You are wrong.

You're just flat out wrong. I know it will be very hard for you to admit, but once you check your old English grammar text, you will find a tidy list of collective nouns, nouns which may be singular or plural depending on their meaning in a particular context. I'll give you another example.

The team took their positions on the field.

The team won its first championship this year.

 

[RedIbis]

I also like the notion that a conspiracy rest on this argument. I wonder if LS lies awake at night thinking "Damn! If I had just said them instead of it each time I was asked, those meddling kids would have never caught on to my plot!"

This one is about as comical as the evidence of a conspiracy because bush used the world "saw" to refer to watching the TV news about the WTC first hit.

Interesting point you inadvertently stepped into. Why didn't LS say "them"? Because he wasn't talking about a group of firefighters who had already been evacuated many hours before the collapse. He was foolishly stumbling his way through a lie. With enormous hubris, I suggest he was describing CD, not because he ever did give such an order, but because without vetting his story, he didn't think people would question the implausibility of setting up same day demo.

After broadcast, once this was brought to his attention he went for "pull it" to mean the firefighters, and of course this doesn't hold water either.

 

[RedIbis]

This is incorrect. Note that "a group [of anything]" is singular, not plural.

Kindly admit that you now know this statement to be 100% false.

 

[LashL]

You're just flat out wrong. I know it will be very hard for you to admit, but once you check your old English grammar text, you will find a tidy list of collective nouns, nouns which may be singular or plural depending on their meaning in a particular context. I'll give you another example.

The team took their positions on the field.

The team won its first championship this year.

You are hilarious, RedIbis.

Again, we are not talking about "the team" or "the committee". We are talking about your assertion that "pull it" cannot possibly apply to "a group" of firefighters.

Your assertion is patently wrong.

I have to admit that I am taking a bit of perverse pleasure in watching you twist yourself into knots trying to avoid admitting your mistake, though.

 

[peguyjaures]

"to pull away", not a colloquial phrasal verb?
Well, if you want.
But I beg to differ.
And I can back up my claim:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pull+away
Look at the first example in the list of phrasal verbs...

Anyway, just try dropping the preposition "away".

" Well, you just pull it, you peel it off."

Quite obviously, most of the meaning is lost...

And what does this change anyways? Context is what matters most here: the whole sentence is about explaining to laymen the process of CD, using non-technical, descriptive terms which don't appear to have any fixed, precise meaning in CD world. "pull away" and "peel" are obviously descriptive terms designed to help non-experts having a grasp of the whole process.

Why the hell would LS attempt to describe the process of demolition on that fateful day?

 

[rwguinn]

You are hilarious, RedIbis.

Again, we are not talking about "the team" or "the committee". We are talking about your assertion that "pull it" cannot possibly apply to "a group" of firefighters.

Your assertion is patently wrong.

I have to admit that I am taking a bit of perverse pleasure in watching you twist yourself into knots trying to avoid admitting your mistake, though.

reminds me of the early versions of grammar checkers:
one of them insisted that the sentence
"Joe and I are both members"
must be
"Joe and I am both members"

 

[LashL]

Kindly admit that you now know this statement to be 100% false.

Hahaha! You really are a piece of work, RedIbis. My comment is not false at all, let alone 100% false.

My comment was a simplified one made in direct response to your assertion that the words "pull it" could not possibly refer to "a group" of firefighters.

While I could have been more precise in my wording, and set out several provisos, exceptions, and lengthy explanations about when and how "a group" might not always be singular, my comment is still accurate.

Yours, on the other hand, remains 100% false.

 

[peguyjaures]

Well, RedIbis, I for one am perfectly aware that collective nouns can be either singular or plural, depending on which aspect you want to emphasize. It's the same in French, my mother tongue.

But I was not implying that "a group of firefighters" cannot be plural. It most certainly can.
YOU were arguing that IT (the aforementioned group) cannot be singular! And you were most certainly wrong.

 

[RedIbis]

"to pull away", not a colloquial phrasal verb?
Well, if you want.
But I beg to differ.
And I can back up my claim:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pull+away
Look at the first example in the list of phrasal verbs...

Anyway, just try dropping the preposition "away".

" Well, you just pull it, you peel it off."

Quite obviously, most of the meaning is lost...

And what does this change anyways? Context is what matters most here: the whole sentence is about explaining to laymen the process of CD, using non-technical, descriptive terms which don't appear to have any fixed, precise meaning in CD world. "pull away" and "peel" are obviously descriptive terms designed to help non-experts having a grasp of the whole process.

Why the hell would LS attempt to describe the process of demolition on that fateful day?

You are conveniently avoiding the other examples I provided. Secondly, to pull away is hardly a particle here since the preposition is being used literally.

Goodness, reading comprehension, not selective grammology (admittedly, that's probably a neologism).