• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

Or when they try to "interpret" expert and eye witness accounts, like EdX on Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. :D

Oh I see, you still cant comprehend the point. Good job, ergo. Apparently you still dont understand the fact that you're claiming Astaneh-Asl is an expert and therefore you can use him as an authority, yet at the same exact time you must also claim he is an absolute idiot or at least completly incompetent because he doesnt believe there is anything to your conspiracy claims. Why doesnt Astaneh-Asl think melted steel = thermite? He must be incompetent or in on it. So you require him to be an idiot conspirator that cant keep his mouth shut, or an expert and an incompetent at the same time. Apparently you think this is reasonable.



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.


Exactly what is contradictory in this thread? You have yet to reply to any of the criticisms of your claims.

Larry has no reason to casually admit fraud and conspiracy with the FDNY to rig WTC7 in a few hours with super secret nano thermite to demolish a building in a way never used before or since without anyone noticing. "Pull" is used by firefighters to describe the firefighting operation or groups of firefighters. The FDNY said the same thing Larry said they did, that they pulled everyone away because it was probably going to collapse. It did. And "Pull it" doesnt mean to put explosives in buildings and blow them up anyway, sorry.

Why do you always require your conspirators to behave like such clueless morons?
 
Last edited:
Oh I see, you still cant comprehend the point. Good job, ergo. Apparently you still dont understand the fact that you're claiming Astaneh-Asl is an expert and therefore you can use him as an authority, yet at the same exact time you must also claim he is an absolute idiot or at least completly incompetent because he doesnt believe there is anything to your conspiracy claims. Why doesnt Astaneh-Asl think melted steel = thermite? He must be incompetent or in on it. So you require him to be an idiot conspirator that cant keep his mouth shut, or an expert and an incompetent at the same time.






Exactly what is contradictory in this thread? You have yet to reply to any of the criticisms of your claims.

ergo do YOU believe Silverstein slipped up and admitted to the CD of WTC7?
 

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. :D

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.

Hmmm, funny thing that that expert you quote doesn't believe that 9/11 was an inside job...

Why don't you explain what happened? Who set the charge off? Why does Silverstein have any say if Bush, the NWO, or the Illuminati wants to demolish his building? In the context of the clip, talking about demo's doesn't even make sense! Your fakery is taking what people say and mean and twisting it into something truly revolting.
 

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. :D

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.

Would you like to ask someone an actual question, or to make an assertion that is not a passive-aggressive dig at your opposition?
If I didn't know better, I'd say you were trying to avoid being pinned down on anything that can be factually proven wrong, even direct, simple questions about your position. And even when you do that, you fail, such as citing an expert who doesn't believe in 9/11 CTs.

I say "know better", because I know you're not doing it on purpose. It's just what works for you, discovered over years of trial and error.

Mostly error.
 
Last edited:
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".

You’re wrong on both counts.

From Firehouse Magazine (April 2002) Deputy Chief Peter Hayden Division1 - 33 years FDNY interview,
Silverstein pull it comment (September 2002)
http://www.firehouse.com/article/10567885/deputy-chief-peter-hayden?page=2


Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: We were worried about additional
collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the
Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of
surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris.
We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
...
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away
from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had
to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out.
There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with,
because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable
any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the
afternoon. ..... But
having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we
were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys.
We didn’t want to lose any more people that day.

Silverstein vindicated. Your options: 1) Admit you were wrong and pay the ten bucks to Chris Mohr for his testing. Contact him for payment. 2) Weasel out of it .

Congratulations ! Your test results are in !
You have selected option:

(2) Weasel out of it.​

Others in your group are:

1. In the bottom 1% of the population
2. Believe robots are stealing your luggage
3. Place 9/11 satisfying self-delusion above reason and evidence.​
 
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.

? What thread are you reading? Name these alleged three assertions and contradictions.

I think you'll find the problem lies in your denial of anything not suggesting a world where you are a lone campaigner against magical dark forces.
 
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.


And before you ask... No. I don't believe the fire department were part of any conspiracy.

Those two statements are logically inconsistent. If you really believe the FDNY were not part of a conspiracy, accept what they say, leave Larry Silverstein alone, and move on.
 
Last edited:
In the interest of further investigation using the latest forensic techniques, I am applying the fascinating methodology revealed in this thread to search for additional hidden meanings in Silverstein's quote:

"I said, you know, we've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it."

The first four words "I said, you know" are merely an introduction of sorts, so we can omit them for now. The remaining quote has exactly 64 letters, perfect for arranging in an 8 by 8 grid. Following the Genesis Seal method, we fill the words into the grid in a counterclockwise spiral, spiraling inward. (For details on why we do this instead of any of a hundred other ways to fill in the letters, see Kingfisher's posts in the above-linked thread. I'm sure he explains that somewhere.)

S O L E L B I R
S S E T R A M R
O T O T S I S E
F T P T I O E T
L H U L L D H H
I I N G T O T C
F E M A Y B E U
W E V E H A D S


Now, by searching within the grid, we reveal the words hidden within Silverstein's quote:

OSS (appears twice) -- American intelligence agency
LIME -- quicklime, a chemical used to destroy evidence
LAST -- the B next to the starting L creates a juxtaposition the words LAST and BLAST; the building was supposed to last but it was destroyed by explosives
SILTY -- condition of harbor after demolition rubble falls into it
TOSS -- out the Constitution
TRAM -- ple on our rights
TUG -- another word meaning "pull"
HOST -- another juxtaposition of similar words with opposite meanings, HOST and HOST-L (hostile); a hostile host suggests an inside job
TOTO -- clearly we're not in Kansas any more
AYGUTO -- when spoken aloud, eerily similar to the Japanese word for 'thank you' (arigato); Japanese collusion in the conspiracy? Or an ironic reference to Pearl Harbor?
FEMA -- say no more!

The presence of so many 9/11-related clues cannot be mere coincidence. But the patterns don't stop there. There are pictorial meanings as well. The Silverstein Seal (as I call it) is a literal map of the 9/11 conspiracy, once you figure out the codes! Consider, for example, the "towers" of stacked letter T's (for "tower" or "twin tower") near the upper left corner. The left tower is shorter, but that might be because its top is shrouded in "smoke", the letter S, which connects to more S's rising like smoke to the upper left corner. So this is a picture of Ground Zero after the first plane impact.

But there's still more. These towers rest on HULL (a container, as in "containing" the secret information?) which rests on ING (a bank!) which in turn rests on FEMA. Could the meaning be any clearer? And "LIME," representing buried destroyed evidence, cuts diagonally across all those "underground" layers.

I have not yet fully decoded the right half of the Silverstein Seal, which might need further manipulation to reveal all its meaning (again, see the linked thread for examples). I think a lot more will be revealed by replacing the letters with low numbers based on some flimsy pretext some clear simple rule and then looking for more patterns. But one thing is clear: the quote could not have been casual or off the cuff, to encode so much hidden information. It can only have been carefully crafted by a supreme being who also wrote the Book of Genesis.

So, Silverstein might have a lot more to answer for than just 9/11. This evidence should change the way we view the Great Flood, the sabotage of the Tower of Babel project (what is it with this guy and tall buildings anyway???), and Sodom and Gomorrah.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
OMG, Myriad; This must be the funniest post ever written on this forum! I got coffee all over my laptop - so thanks or that! :D
 
I did too, Firestone:) I just had to use a little time to figure out how that was done:)
 
OMG, Myriad; This must be the funniest post ever written on this forum! I got coffee all over my laptop - so thanks or that! :D

That's not saying much, but holy crap that post looks like a tremendous waste of time.
 
That's not saying much, but holy crap that post looks like a tremendous waste of time.
Irony-796569.jpg
 
That's not saying much, but holy crap that post looks like a tremendous waste of time.

And just to think, rather than reading it you could have come up with evidence to support your now laughably false claims that Silverstein received a windfall and "made out like a bandit."

I mean a couple of years ago, perhaps, those were just silly statements. But your dogged determination to ignore them since then has turned them into two great millstones that you drag around the forum with you.

And every snarky post devoid of substance is like a huge dish of hypocrisy with a healthy side of irony.

|
|
|
|
|
V​
 
...Does anybody else find it unlikely that Silverstein actually used the words "pull it" prior to the interview? He probably didn't even learn that term until after Nigro (or another firefighter) were talking to him on 9/11.
 

Back
Top Bottom