Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

[cjnewson88]

let's turn to a well-known truther blog to see what larry actually said, verbatim, and what his spokesperson, mr. Dara mcquillan, later elaborated upon, verbatim.
The source is 9-11 research's "owner's admission?" and the quotes are:

And


in full context, it is totally clear that

• the fire chiefs (unnamed, by the way; silverstein did nor remember the name of the person he spoke with) called silverstein to inform him, and they made that decision
• silverstein only agreed to the fire chiefs' assessment and decision, nothing more
• the reason why silverstein agreed the decision to "pull it" was correct was that a) "we've had such terrible loss of life" and b) they were not able to contain the fires anyway and were on the way to losing building 7

let's focus on that "loss of life" reason, and how it makes sense in light of the two competing interpretations of "pull it" as

• go out of building 7 and cease any fire fighting effort
• go into building 7 and demolish it

what's a fire chief's concern when they've "had such terrible loss of life" - when in fact they lost more than 300 fire fighters? I think there are basically 2 concerns, in the following order:

1. prevent any more loss of life
2. prioritize your activities strictly since you are missing over 300 men and are severely stripped of manpower. The highest priority for any fire fighter at all times is preserving lives.

so. If you want to prevent losing more men, and need to focus your decreased man power on highest priority activities, namely preserving lives (rescue...), you would never send any men into an empty building you deem unsafe, carrying in explosives and/or high-tech incendiaries, while pulling these men away from the rescue efforts outside of wtc7. You would put the lives of these men on the line, and at the same time these men would not be available to rescue any lives on ground zero. Soi "demolish an empty, unsafe building" would achieve the very opposite of your stated objectives.

However, pulling men out of harm's way at this burning, empty building, and assigning them to a rescue operation elsewhere, achieves both your goasl of protecting the lives of your men and rescuing vivtims.



There is not a shadow of a doubt who made that decision, why that decision was made, and what that decision was.

Not even the truther blog that i quoted from believed this "pull it" meme. And apparently, that article was written before the draft of nist's 7 wtc report was out in august 2008, 3 and a half years ago!!

Anyone who still believes silverstein admitted to demolishing his building is so far down the rabbit hole, is totally totally totally hopeless. It makes absolutely zero sense to spend one more minute of one's life on such people and their drivel. That's why clayton and ergo follow mm back to my ignore list. In fact i have made a decision to pull it: i will not discuss truthers at all who believe in pull it. I will not debate anyone who refuses to stick to a claim and present evidence when asked for without moving goal posts. I will henceforth limit miyself to replying to smart and honest people, or those who are honestly mistaken. This in effect means i will not debate any twoofers on this board, for there really is not a single twoofer on this forum who is genuine and not deluded. Ozeco had it right all along.

[/rant]
[/soapbox]

+1
[/thread]

 

[RedIbis]

Absolutely. The "Pull it" quote has not been discussed to the extent it deserves.

I agree. Normally, I'd be ready to fire off hundreds of posts in this thread, spend many hours and type the callouses off my fingertips, but there is the second leg of the Copa Del Rey this afternoon, so I'll have to pass for now. Go Barca!

 

[aggle-rithm]

Yes, "pull it" is a demolition term.

Ten bucks says that the slingers of bunk, in any case,

1) won't be able to find a single reference where the phrase "pull it" refers to an operation involving pulling personnel.

2) will ever explain why an operation that, in the end, had no personnel in it would need to be "pulled".

But of course, as their last resort, they can always just claim another 9/11 "first".

I'm surprised you don't know more about the nature of language. You seem to be using it as we speak.

You see, words can be combined in many different ways to communicate the same idea. If you listen to the Silverstein quote, you can hear him pause for a moment while he decides what would be the best choice of words to get his meaning across to the listener. He may just as easily have said "cancel it", "call it off", "pull the plug", "give it up", or any number of other phrases. On the spur of the moment, he chose to say "pull it", which isn't terribly clear but can easily be understood, once again, from the CONTEXT.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Let's turn to a well-known Truther blog to see what Larry actually said, verbatim, and what his spokesperson, Mr. Dara McQuillan, later elaborated upon, verbatim.
The source is 9-11 Research's "Owner's Admission?" and the quotes are:

And


In full context, it is totally clear that

• The fire chiefs (unnamed, by the way; Silverstein did nor remember the name of the person he spoke with) called Silverstein to inform him, and THEY made that decision
• Silverstein only agreed to the fire chiefs' assessment and decision, nothing more
• The reason why Silverstein agreed the decision to "pull it" was correct was that a) "we've had such terrible loss of life" and b) they were not able to contain the fires anyway and were on the way to losing Building 7

Let's focus on that "loss of life" reason, and how it makes sense in light of the two competing interpretations of "pull it" as

• Go out of Building 7 and cease any fire fighting effort
• Go into Building 7 and demolish it

What's a fire chief's concern when they've "had such terrible loss of life" - when in fact they lost more than 300 fire fighters? I think there are basically 2 concerns, in the following order:

1. Prevent any more loss of life
2. Prioritize your activities strictly since you are missing over 300 men and are severely stripped of manpower. The highest priority for any fire fighter at all times is preserving lives.

So. If you want to prevent losing more men, and need to focus your decreased man power on highest priority activities, namely preserving lives (rescue...), you would never send any men into an empty building you deem unsafe, carrying in explosives and/or high-tech incendiaries, while pulling these men away from the rescue efforts outside of WTC7. You would put the lives of these men on the line, and at the same time these men would not be available to rescue any lives on Ground Zero. Soi "demolish an empty, unsafe building" would achieve the very opposite of your stated objectives.

However, pulling men out of harm's way at this burning, empty building, and assigning them to a rescue operation elsewhere, achieves both your goasl of protecting the lives of your men and rescuing vivtims.



There is not a shadow of a doubt who made that decision, why that decision was made, and what that decision was.

Not even the Truther blog that I quoted from believed this "pull it" meme. And apparently, that article was written before the draft of NIST's 7 WTC report was out in August 2008, 3 and a half years ago!!

Anyone who still believes Silverstein admitted to demolishing his building is so far down the rabbit hole, is totally totally totally hopeless. It makes absolutely zero sense to spend one more minute of one's life on such people and their drivel. That's why Clayton and ergo follow MM back to my ignore list. In fact I have made a decision to pull it: I will not discuss truthers at all who believe in pull it. I will not debate anyone who refuses to stick to a claim and present evidence when asked for without moving goal posts. I will henceforth limit miyself to replying to smart and honest people, or those who are honestly mistaken. This in effect means I will not debate any twoofers on this board, for there really is not a single twoofer on this forum who is genuine and not deluded. ozeco had it right all along.

[/rant]
[/soapbox]

 

[grandmastershek]

Of course what Ergo is leaving out is that "pull" refers to the actual process of pulling it down and that truthers have never provided a reputable source showing that it refers to explosives.

 

[timmyg]

Wow.
I can't imagine this simple question ever leading to 2 pages of emotion on any other forum... and not one post giving an answer


A simple 'No. I haven't seen the video interview you are talking about' would suffice.

I wasn't trying to make a point. Just genuinely would like to see the interview if it exists.

 

[tsig]

For every 9/11 fact showing proof that 9/11 was an inside job there is a nonsense lie spewed by those with their backs against the wall.

The end is near for neocon gang.

The end is nigh, the sky is falling.

 

[twinstead]

LOL neocon gang. Yea, that's right Clayton. Everybody who agrees with the commonly-held narrative of 9-11, at least until REAL evidence surfaces that puts it in doubt, is a neocon.

So, JREFers. Clayton has figured us out; we all share the same political beliefs

 

[ergo]

It's frustrating listening to people who really should have no personal investment in what Larry Silverstein said or didn't say, nevertheless for some reason feel the need to stretch the truth beyond any credibility. Over and over. Despite the fact that this point has been established and the debate on it is over.

"Pull it" is a demolition industry term. It doesn't matter whether it refers to explosive demolition or not. A turn of phrase from a previous era is often applied to a new technology. Silverstein is in property management, not demolition.

If the interpretation that is trying to take hold here had any validity at all, Silverstein's comment would look more like: "...and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse the firefighters pulled out." Or ".. and the personnel evacuated the area.." Or " ... and we watched them pull away from the building..."

It is also well established that there were no firefighters in Building 7 after that morning. If there were personnel monitoring the building from the outside, they would be the ones to know when to pull away from the building, not Larry Silverstein. If WTC 7 collapsed from structural weakening, as you claim, then Silverstein does not have some kind of omnipotent power of prediction to know when to "pull" personnel away from it. Yet he said "...and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

It's a pretty clear statement. Pulling personnel from monitoring duties on the outside is not going to suddenly cause the building to collapse.

You really should drop this point, guys. It's stupid that you keep bringing it up.

 

[Oystein]

Wow.
I can't imagine this simple question ever leading to 2 pages of emotion on any other forum... and not one post giving an answer


A simple 'No. I haven't seen the video interview you are talking about' would suffice.

I wasn't trying to make a point. Just genuinely would like to see the interview if it exists.

timmy,

your question was actually answered twice.
Here:

It wasn't a video. It was a statement made by a spokesman for Silverstein Properties.
On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement [on the issue of Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment]:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. ...

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. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

and here:

Let's turn to a well-known Truther blog to see what Larry actually said, verbatim, and what his spokesperson, Mr. Dara McQuillan, later elaborated upon, verbatim.
The source is 9-11 Research's "Owner's Admission?" and the quotes are:
...
And

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

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. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

My source documents that that statement was issued on September 9, 2005, which date fits the claim of your truther contact, only that it wasn't a video but more likely a written statement. Maybe your truther remembers the statement from a video that talked about it? That wouldn't be the source then but second- or third-hand.

 

[NoahFence]

The blazing stupidity of truthers never ceases to amaze me.

 

[twinstead]

It's frustrating listening to people who really should have no personal investment in what Larry Silverstein said or didn't say, nevertheless for some reason feel the need to stretch the truth beyond any credibility. Over and over. Despite the fact that this point has been established and the debate on it is over.

"Pull it" is a demolition industry term. It doesn't matter whether it refers to explosive demolition or not. A turn of phrase from a previous era is often applied to a new technology. Silverstein is in property management, not demolition.

If the interpretation that is trying to take hold here had any validity at all, Silverstein's comment would look more like: "...and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse the firefighters pulled out." Or ".. and the personnel evacuated the area.." Or " ... and we watched them pull away from the building..."

It is also well established that there were no firefighters in Building 7 after that morning. If there were personnel monitoring the building from the outside, they would be the ones to know when to pull away from the building, not Larry Silverstein. If WTC 7 collapsed from structural weakening, as you claim, then Silverstein does not have some kind of omnipotent power of prediction to know when to "pull" personnel away from it. Yet he said "...and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

It's a pretty clear statement. Pulling personnel from monitoring duties on the outside is not going to suddenly cause the building to collapse.

You really should drop this point, guys. It's stupid that you keep bringing it up.

Seriously?

Silverstein may not know when to pull the personnel away from it, but "they" made that decision, not him. Also, do you really think that "and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" really means that the building collapsed immediately after the firefighting effort was pulled?

The issue is simple: either one thinks that Silverstein was in on the CD of the WTC7, yet blurted it out in public, or one thinks that Silverstein was simply recalling the discussions he had with the people involved in the firefighting about ending the effort to save the WTC7, and "pull it" is coincidentally a term used in CD.

The former is the only stupid thing that keeps being brought up.

 

[NoahFence]

I can't believe they think a real estate tycoon had any say on whether or not to continue firefighting efforts at the worst terrorist attack in history. To even imply it is beyond stupidity. And to top it off - he admitted he told the (in on it) FDNY to destroy the building.

You can't make up that level of stupid.

 

[Edx]

Are you serios?

Yes he is serios, if you watch America Rebuilds Alex Jones tried to quotemine a worker saying "we're getting ready to pull building 6" to prove its a demolition term, but if you continue to watch where Jones stops the clip you see the worker is talking LITERALLY to pull down the building with cables.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's frustrating listening to people who really should have no personal investment in what Larry Silverstein said or didn't say, nevertheless for some reason feel the need to stretch the truth beyond any credibility. Over and over. Despite the fact that this point has been established and the debate on it is over.

"Pull it" is a demolition industry term. It doesn't matter whether it refers to explosive demolition or not. A turn of phrase from a previous era is often applied to a new technology. Silverstein is in property management, not demolition.

If the interpretation that is trying to take hold here had any validity at all, Silverstein's comment would look more like: "...and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse the firefighters pulled out." Or ".. and the personnel evacuated the area.." Or " ... and we watched them pull away from the building..."

It is also well established that there were no firefighters in Building 7 after that morning. If there were personnel monitoring the building from the outside, they would be the ones to know when to pull away from the building, not Larry Silverstein. If WTC 7 collapsed from structural weakening, as you claim, then Silverstein does not have some kind of omnipotent power of prediction to know when to "pull" personnel away from it. Yet he said "...and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

It's a pretty clear statement. Pulling personnel from monitoring duties on the outside is not going to suddenly cause the building to collapse.

You really should drop this point, guys. It's stupid that you keep bringing it up.

LULZ lulz lulz lulz! First he claims that no one ever uses the term "pull" to refer to retreating from a dangerous predicament, yet ignores firemen saying just that. Here's a few more sport:

I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

"Firefighters pull back in fear of venomous snakes" http://news.yahoo.com/firefighters-pull-back-fear-venomous-snakes-125031388.html

etc etc etc

Further NOW you devote an entire silly post to the fraudulent claim that they pulled the monitors? That is a ridiculous lie. Hey, ergo, read Nigro's quote again. They "pulled" all firefighters back to define the collpase zone, they didn't thereafter pull the monitors back from there.

Why do you post such silly lies that are so easy to debunk?

Truthers pointing the finger at the FDNY? Keep it up!

 

[The Big Dog]

I agree. Normally, I'd be ready to fire off hundreds of posts in this thread, spend many hours and type the callouses off my fingertips, but there is the second leg of the Copa Del Rey this afternoon, so I'll have to pass for now. Go Barca!

HAHA!! Say, Red does have a sense of humor after all.

Maybe after the soccer matches he'll acknowledge my sig.

 

[minnemouse]

IIRC, I read in a thread on the firehouse forum, that the FDNY would be delighted to talk to the "truthers" face to face, i.e. have them come into one of the firehouses, and put out their theories. The thread is a few years old. I highly doubt that any "truther" rose to that occation. Too bad; I am pretty sure firefighters of any ladder in NYC could have explained this nonsense with pull VERY vividly

 

[Edx]

It's frustrating listening to people who really should have no personal investment in what Larry Silverstein said or didn't say, nevertheless for some reason feel the need to stretch the truth beyond any credibility.

Beyond credibility?

You think its a more credible interpretation of Silverstein saying "pull it" to not mean "firefighting effort", but rather that he admitted on recorded TV that he and the FDNY conspired to blow up his own building and commit insurance fraud and that is why the entire FDNY is covering up the truth about this and that he was completely blase about doing this and no one other than conspiracy theorists actually saw this blatant admission. You think THAT is a more reasonable interpretation.

"Pull it" is a demolition industry term. It doesn't matter whether it refers to explosive demolition or not. A turn of phrase from a previous era is often applied to a new technology. Silverstein is in property management, not demolition.

Evidence that it is a demolition term?

I recall a truther tried calling up several of them and they had no idea what he was talking about, only getting one or two to say that it means to literally "pull it down". Thats why in America Rebuilds the worker says "we're getting ready to pull building 6", but Alex Jones tried to use this as proof its a demolition term to blow up buildings, but he snipped the rest of the show out which shows that the guy was talking about literally pulling it down with cables. In other words, it wasn't a "term" it was describing the literal act of what they were about to do. Why would truthers have to quote mine in order to argue that its a demolition term?

In that InfoWars page above it even says...

"Mr. Silverstein's comments imply that he and the FDNY threw together an expert demolition job in the space of a few short hours on the afternoon of 9/11. "

And apparently they dont think this is reason enough to consider maybe their interpretation of his comments might be at fault.

Also, if Silverstein really meant demolition, why wouldn't he just say that?

If the interpretation that is trying to take hold here had any validity at all, Silverstein's comment would look more like: "...and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse the firefighters pulled out." Or ".. and the personnel evacuated the area.." Or
" ... and we watched them pull away from the building..."

Except as I said the alternative is that Silvertsien admitted to conspiracy and insurance fraud and the FDNY helped him blow up his own building and they used high tech demolition methods never used before or since all within a few hours.

The fact that firefighters use the word "pull" to refer to firefighting operations shows that when Silverstein says "pull it" he is probably just repeating what the firefighting official told him and using the words in the same way.

It is also well established that there were no firefighters in Building 7 after that morning.

There were however firefighters AROUND Building 7. Read the oral histories of the firefighters, that is why they pulled everyone back and created the collapse zone. After it collapsed they went in and continued to search for survivors, they expected it to collapse and there is not a hint of surprise from any of them.

f there were personnel monitoring the building from the outside, they would be the ones to know when to pull away from the building,ot Larry Silverstein.

What part of ... "THEY MADE THE DECISION".... do you not understand? "They" are the firefighting chiefs, which can easily be seen by reading what they and other firefighters there said about it. Larry did not decide anything.

If WTC 7 collapsed from structural weakening, as you claim, then Silverstein does not have some kind of omnipotent power of prediction to know when to "pull" personnel away from it. Yet he said "...and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Not sure how you extrapolate any kind of prediction to Larry's words. The FDNY called Silverstein as a courtesy call to let him know that they won't be able to do anything about the fire and they are pulling everyone back and letting it burn because they think its likely going to collapse. The FDNY made the decision the building was unsafe and probably going to collapse HOURS earlier, the FDNY created the collapse zone and then the building collapsed.

It's a pretty clear statement. Pulling personnel from monitoring duties on the outside is not going to suddenly cause the building to collapse.

In no way does what Larry said suggest that it all happened immediately one step after the other. We already know that it collapsed hours after they made the decision to create the collapse zone.

 

[minnemouse]

And according to Dan Nigro it did NOT happen immediately after:

"For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed. Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)"

I am kind of wondering if "truthers" are suffering from a strange kind of illiteracy? They (most certainly!) know how to write, but they are really not good at reading.

 

[Edx]

I am kind of wondering if "truthers" are suffering from a strange kind of illiteracy? They (most certainly!) know how to write, but they are really not good at reading.

I think its an extreme need to believe that Silverstein had to mean what they say he meant, because otherwise its all just incredibly embarrassing for them.