Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'
- Thread starter timmyg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- larry silverstein pull it
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,883
Looks to me that it's the 911 cults that are trying too "pull" something here, not Larry.
Last edited:
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,764
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Well go on then, we've asked truthers for years where is the evidence its even industry jargon to mean put explosives in a building a blow it up and all they do is insist it really does mean that. You got anything else other than your insistence?
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
When you were given the login information for the Miragememories account, weren't you at least told to act like the previous owner?
It doesn't. I told you that earlier. I was just a statement made on his behalf. IIRC there was never a video of Mr. McQuillan making the statement.
ETA: Thanks Oystein. Saw your post after I posted
er.. ok . so you told me about something I already mentioned in my initial post which began the thread.... well done
I never suggested there was a video of Mcquillan making the statement. I wanted to know if anyone had seen a video of Silverstein (any video) mentioning his 'pull it' comment in reflection of the original PBS documentary. Someone I have been speaking to is adamant there is one.
minnemouse
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2011
- Messages
- 287
Then ask that "someone" to present the video - the burden of evidence should be provided by the one that comes with a statement. Although that doesnt apply in the twooferworld, it DOES apply in the real world. Good luck!
and while we're all having a row about it...
I have to say I think the debate about 'pull' being or not being used as a term to describe a demolition is a bit ridiculous.
'Pull it' in this context is clearly a slang term, used loosely. I will accept that it's possible that the most popular use of this slang term/expression is to describe the literal pulling down of a building via cables. But it is still a term used loosely and it is not unthinkable that silverstein (who is not an expert in demolition but IS a pretty serious property developer and has more than likely been party to building demolitions in the past in the course of business) would be casually using a term like this to describe the demolition of his building.
Indeed, the very same PBS documentary in which he made his infamous remark, describes the 'pulling of building 6' followed by 'we had to be careful about how we demolished building 6'
If the whole thing is completely innocent, I don't see why he can't answer some simple questions about his conversation that day (like the name of who he was speaking to during the alleged conversation). Or even give a brief explanation himself of what he meant, rather than having Dara Mcquillan answer on his behalf.
And before you ask... No. I don't believe the fire department were part of any conspiracy.
I have to say I think the debate about 'pull' being or not being used as a term to describe a demolition is a bit ridiculous.
'Pull it' in this context is clearly a slang term, used loosely. I will accept that it's possible that the most popular use of this slang term/expression is to describe the literal pulling down of a building via cables. But it is still a term used loosely and it is not unthinkable that silverstein (who is not an expert in demolition but IS a pretty serious property developer and has more than likely been party to building demolitions in the past in the course of business) would be casually using a term like this to describe the demolition of his building.
Indeed, the very same PBS documentary in which he made his infamous remark, describes the 'pulling of building 6' followed by 'we had to be careful about how we demolished building 6'
If the whole thing is completely innocent, I don't see why he can't answer some simple questions about his conversation that day (like the name of who he was speaking to during the alleged conversation). Or even give a brief explanation himself of what he meant, rather than having Dara Mcquillan answer on his behalf.
And before you ask... No. I don't believe the fire department were part of any conspiracy.
ozeco41
Philosopher
The whole debate is a sideline/derail/red herring.
It arose because truthers wanted to claim that WTC7 was demolished so they dishonestly misrepresented the Silverstein statement.
The real issue is "Was WTC7 demolished or not?" whether or not LS misused the word "pull"
...and no-one has made a prima-facie case for demolition. So discussing "pull' is a waste of time.
...just as discussion of thermXte is a waste of time.
UNLESS you are a truther troll when your objective is to prevent discussions progressing.
...and what better than interminable debates about the meaning of words.
Just look at how ergo, Clayton M, MM et al take delight in keeping these red herrings going.
It arose because truthers wanted to claim that WTC7 was demolished so they dishonestly misrepresented the Silverstein statement.
The real issue is "Was WTC7 demolished or not?" whether or not LS misused the word "pull"
...and no-one has made a prima-facie case for demolition. So discussing "pull' is a waste of time.
...just as discussion of thermXte is a waste of time.
UNLESS you are a truther troll when your objective is to prevent discussions progressing.
...and what better than interminable debates about the meaning of words.
Just look at how ergo, Clayton M, MM et al take delight in keeping these red herrings going.
By having his spokesperson issue a statement about this non-issue he already did much more than obliged to.
There is no reason whatsoever to indulge silly conspiracy theories or patently false interpretations of two words.
Even if Silverstein would come in person before a court and proclaim under oath what he meant with "pull it", the 9/11 "truthers" still won't believe him (and add perjury to his alleged crimes).
(See what happened with Obama's long form and the Birthers.)
As others have said, discussing the "pull it" thing in 2012 is beyond ridicule.
(ETA: actually, this applies to all the 9/11 conspiracy theories.)
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Even acknowledging the question gives the clowns asking it more credibility than they deserve.
Look to the example of Richard Dawkins (and several of his colleagues.) He refuses to debate creationists because all they are looking for is the credibility of appearing on the platform with him. They consistently refer to "two sides" meaning Creationism v Evolutionary Science. There are not two sides.
In fact the analogy to 9/11 conspiracies is valid. There is no conspiracy "side" in the form of reasoned evidence based claims which are sufficiently plausible to merit a response. We give too much credit to "truthers" when we discuss with them when they have not put forward their claims supported by reasoned argument sufficient to make a "case to answer".
Hmmm. Interesting . What are these 'sides' and why are they relevant to a discussion ?
Surely it's ok to consider things. I would have thought, on a forum supposedly dedicated to critical thinking, considering information rather than classifying it on first glance would be appropriate.
It would be really really easy for Silverstein to say 'I meant pull the fighter fighters '(and in answering the question he doesn't have to enter any crazy twoofy world of silly twooofers) but he won't.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
It is abundantly clear from his original words what he meant.
Also, we already pointed out twice (here and here), and then reminded you twice (here and here) in this thread that the explanatory notes (that he DID in fact mean "to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building") came in 2005 as a written statement by Silverstein Properties' spokesperson, and not a videotaped interview. timmyg, please read, acknowledge you read and understood the linked posts!
Last edited:
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,461
Oh well...you say so Red. Must be true.
(bolding mine)
He actually DID, in a very clear statement, put out in his name.
Case closed.
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
It is, beacuse even if it was a demolition term it would still make zero sense for Silverstein to be casually saying he is guilty of fraud and conspiracy.
Its worth pointing out however because part of the problem with truthers is they seem to love being 100% wrong about just about everything back to front.
If anything "pull" slang term that firefighters use to talk about firefighting operations. Silverstein using it the way the fire department official probably used it when he was called. We know firefighters use "pull" in the same way. Big deal?
As I have said before in that PBS documentary "pull" is not used as a slang term, it is used in a literal sense. They are going to literally pull down the building with cables. Is there any other reason to think demolition companies use the word "pull" as a slang term to mean demolish buildings? I have never seen truthers bring any more than their insistence that they do.
Maybe he doesnt remember, why does it matter?
He's already done that. What do you really think he could have meant?
Then why would it mean anything other than what it appears to mean?
You think its possible in this documentary he is casually admitting that he had his own building blown up by explosives and nano thermite in a matter of a few hours, but lying (according to you) about the FDNY helping him do it? In what way could there be more to it this that requires Silverstein to be lying about something?
He received a courtesy call from a FDNY representative that said they were not going to be able to fight the fire and they were going to pull the effort back beacuse the building is in danger of collapse. He agreed with them. Then he tells us this in the documentary interview. Thats how simple this is. If you read what the firefighters said, if you read what Daniel Nigro the fire chief said, who was in charge of the pull back order, Silverstein is just saying in different words exactly what the FDNY were saying.
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
ergo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,339
Heh. More silliness from ozeco41.
It's funny to watch rebunkers fall over themselves trying to make another one of their wild stretches of truth work. Like when they try to find examples of highrises plummeting to the ground from fire. Or when they try to "interpret" expert and eye witness accounts, like EdX on Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.
So far in this thread we've seen three different bedunker assertions of what happened that afternoon, who said what, what decision was made, by whom and why, all of them contradicting the others in some important aspect. Give it up, guys. You can't even get your fakery straight.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Heh. More silliness from ozeco41.
It's funny to watch rebunkers fall over themselves trying to make another one of their wild stretches of truth work. Like when they try to find examples of highrises plummeting to the ground from fire. Or when they try to "interpret" expert and eye witness accounts, like EdX on Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.
So far in this thread we've seen three different bedunker assertions of what happened that afternoon, who said what, what decision was made, by whom and why, all of them contradicting the others in some important aspect. Give it up, guys. You can't even get your fakery straight.
Project much?