Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

[aggle-rithm]

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

Mmmmm....irony....

 

[LSSBB]

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.

It's like his own personal Chappaquiddick

 

[plague311]

In my honest opinion it sounds like Silverstien did the textbook act of repeating what he was told. I talk baseball 90% of my day, because I love it in every sense of the word.

You have no idea how many times I'll say something baseball slang. "He goes yard night after night." "He can't lay off the ol' uncle Charlie." "He has the deuces wild" (Referring to 2 balls, 2 strikes and 2 outs.) I do it all the time, and almost every time the person I am talking to says the same slang. They might have never heard it before, and it might be extremely out of context, but they say it because it's what they heard.

I think Silverstein does it here, he talks to the firefighter and that person probably said something related to pulling it. Larry, wanting to sound like he's in the know, just repeated what was last said.

er..I mean, cover up. He made cash, lots of it!

 

[ergo]

So, someone help me out here. Dara McQuillan, in a prepared statement in 2005 (which means he had lots of time to think about what he was saying, especially since he needed to correct Larry's goof) said that firefighters were in WTC 7 in the afternoon, "working to contain the fires".

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.

and that:

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.

But Peter Hayden says that no attempt was ever made to fight the fires.

...that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose.

Plus the fact that there was no water to fight it....right?

the water supply to fight fires in WTC 7 was impaired... no efforts were made to fight the fires.

Dan Nigro says he made the decision to pull personnel away from the building (not out of it), and didn't consult anyone else about it:

"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.

So Dan Nigro pulled personnel away from the building, three hours prior to it collapsing. No pulling men from inside. No consultation with Larry Silverstein.

But according to the New York Times, it was Assistant Chief Frank Fellini who ordered firefighters away, well before the afternoon.

By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.

So, who's telling the truth? If, as I think we can see clearly now, there was no firefighting effort for WTC 7, what does the comment "...the smartest thing to do is to pull it" refer to, and why would Silverstein have been consulted about this, since it would make no difference to what happens to his building?

 

[brazenlilraisin]

what does the comment "...the smartest thing to do is to pull it" refer to

Just for the sake of argument, let's say your interpretation of all the quotes above is correct.

Now...

you answer the question. In detail. With specifics.

 

[ergo]

With the exception of the NIST and NYT quotes, all the other quotes are actually from bedunkers in this thread.

And no, I think I'll let you answer the question, since you're the ones trying to defend the "pull it" comment here.

Nice try, though.

 

[NoahFence]

With the exception of the NIST and NYT quotes, all the other quotes are actually from bedunkers in this thread.

And no, I think I'll let you answer the question, since you're the ones trying to defend the "pull it" comment here.

Nice try, though.

There's no need to defend a comment that has nothing to do with anything. Only in your twisted, retarded world does "pull it" mean something nefarious.

Actually that's probably not even the case as you know damn well what he meant. You're just being contrarian for the sake of doing so. I'm sure your loved ones are proud to know that you use the murder of 3,000 people as a punch line.

 

[ozeco41]

There's no need to defend a comment that has nothing to do with anything. Only in your twisted, retarded world does "pull it" mean something nefarious.

Actually that's probably not even the case as you know damn well what he meant. You're just being contrarian for the sake of doing so. I'm sure your loved ones are proud to know that you use the murder of 3,000 people as a punch line.

The whole discussion about "pull it" is a trolls side track going nowhere.

The purpose it is raised is to support claims of demolition at WTC7.

There was no demolition AND no-one has ever made a supportable prima-facie claim that there was demolition.

So the bottom line with this derail is that, even if LS did say "pull it" AND meant "demolish it" it did not happen. Same with S Jones figment of his imagination - thermXte. There was no demolition at WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7 so thermXte could not have been involved in demolition and the discussion of thermXte is a troll serving derail/red herring/side-line.

And the ball is fair square in the court of any truther who wants to claim otherwise. No "reversing burden of proof" - no truther demands that debunkers achieve the impossible and prove a negative. Cut out the tricks. Put up or shut up. It matters not what LS said.

 

[Clayton Moore]

It matters not what LS said.

It never matters what anyone says or didn't say. There were many newscasters including Peter Jennings who reported explosions.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/20933...ene_cruz_survives_explosions_in_wtc_basement/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjezhp0rL3M

And what are we told today? We're told there were no explosions.

 

[cjnewson88]

And what are we told today? We're told there were no explosions.

Can you please source where you believe we are all told there were "no explosions"?

I only ask because its a lie. We know there were many explosions as the aircraft hit, this has never been denied, only explained. It is just idiots people like you who believe "Explosion = Bomb" and therefore the government did it. Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that hundreds of WTC survivors witnessed and smelled jet fuel pouring down the elevator shafts and exploding out on sever floors, including the lobby and basement floors? Before he changed his story, William Rodriguez even spoke of the jet fuel doing this. Why do you willfully ignore this fact and continue to rant on about explosion = bomb misconception?

By the way, I hope you can understand, as anyone with half a brain can understand, that the 2nd video you linked the guy talks about three big explosions. A first huge one rocking the buildings, a while later a 2nd even bigger one after all the emergency workers had arrived, and then finally one massive one which spread white dust everywhere.. In case you cannot figure it out, these have been reported by hundreds of people, and are commonly known as the impact of Flight 11, followed a short while later by the impact of Flight 175, followed a while later by the collapse of the South Tower.

Clayton, do you deliberately remain ignorant or do you just enjoy being a liar?

 

[BasqueArch]

Thanks Myriad fuunny and well done.

 

[ozeco41]

Can you please source where you believe we are all told there were "no explosions"?

Clayton is playing wordgames. It is up to us debunkers to call him on this aspect of untruthfulness - whether he speaks with intent to be untruthful OR simply out of ignorance.

The word game is over the ambiguous definition of "explosion". The only "explosions" which would matter are those caused by high explosives capable of cutting steel. The presence of those types of explosions would indicate demolition which is where Clayton is trying to mislead us. There were undoubtedly many lower explosions. But of an intensity that would not cut steel and therefore are not associated with demolition.

So the bad guys are "high" explosives which can cut steel - let's call them "high explosions". The not bad guys are "low explosives" and other miscellaneous things such as aviation fuel - these cause what we can call "low" explosions and cannot cut steel therefore are not proof of demolition.

With that distinction clearly in mind we can bypass the trap Clayton is laying with his mendacious claims.

There were many newscasters including Peter Jennings who reported explosions......

True. "Low Explosions" Not involved in steel cutting. Not evidence of Demolition. There would have been many of them from diverse sources. So Clayton's claim so far is probably true BUT IT DOES NOT SUPPORT DEMOLITION.

...And what are we told today? We're told there were no explosions.

Also correct but it refers to "high explosions" - the ones required for explosive CD.

So Clayton sets up a false presumption that the two are in opposition. They aren't. There were many (low) explosions. There were no (high) explosions. Therefore no demolition. And the two aspects can both be true. They probably were both true. Clayton is implying that they are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Clayton is wrong.

So Clayton can play his deceptive games as much as he wants. It is up to us to call him on his untruthfulness. Whether it is deliberate untruthfulness or simply ignorance HE IS WRONG.

 

[Oystein]

So, someone help me out here. Dara McQuillan, in a prepared statement in 2005 (which means he had lots of time to think about what he was saying, especially since he needed to correct Larry's goof) said that firefighters were in WTC 7 in the afternoon, "working to contain the fires".

and that:

But Peter Hayden says that no attempt was ever made to fight the fires.

Plus the fact that there was no water to fight it....right?

Dan Nigro says he made the decision to pull personnel away from the building (not out of it), and didn't consult anyone else about it:

So Dan Nigro pulled personnel away from the building, three hours prior to it collapsing. No pulling men from inside. No consultation with Larry Silverstein.

But according to the New York Times, it was Assistant Chief Frank Fellini who ordered firefighters away, well before the afternoon.

So, who's telling the truth? If, as I think we can see clearly now, there was no firefighting effort for WTC 7, what does the comment "...the smartest thing to do is to pull it" refer to, and why would Silverstein have been consulted about this, since it would make no difference to what happens to his building?

This is easy. In 2002, Silverstein related, from memory, the content of a phone conversation he had many months earlier with a fire chief, in which the fire chief informed him of the decision already made by the responsible rank and file of the FDNY not to fight fires in WTC7 and instead pull all personel away from the building. Silverstein may have tried his best to recall that conversation, but there is no guarantee that he got it all right. Maybe he misunderstood what they told him? Maybe he truly understood that they had been fighting fires and called him to get his opinion on whether or not to stop that? In that case, he simply misunderstood.

We have to accept that
a) Silverstein might not have fully understood from the phone conversation what the situation was at WTC7 at all times
b) Silverstein may not have recalled the content of the conversation perfectly several months later
c) Silverstein may have mixed information he knew about his building from other sources into his recollection of that phone call.

In fact, all three possibilties are so overwhelmingly likely that they are almost certainly all true. It's just how human communication and recollection is: Imperfect.


Now what about the press release in 2005? Well, Silverstein had been made aware that CTers blackmailed him and made outrageous accusations, implying that he committed fraud and even conspired to murder 2500 humans in NYC, all based on a distorted and malicious misrepresentation of his recollection of a phone call. A distasteful situation quite beneath him, for good reasons, to respond to in person. So he asked his spokesperson to relate, in hie lieu, a clarification of what he recalled from the phone conversation - this time not months, but years later. Has his recollection or understanding of the phone conversation improved? Unlikely. Did he forget whether he meant "demolish the building" or "get the fire fighters out of harm's way"? Unlikely as well.

We can't escape the obvious: Silverstein, and later his spokesperson, tell us what he understood and remembered from a phone call. Any deviation from cold facts can best be explained by incomplete information, misunderstandings, inexpertly usage of technical slang^[1], and imperfect recollection. Still, his version and interpretation of events is lightyears closer to reality than that of all truthers.



[1] Why would anyone expect Silverstein to employ either fire fighters' slang, or demo companies' slang, correctly? I note that some debunkers have provided citations of firefighters saying "pull it back", but not "pull it" (without "back", or "away"). "Pull it" (alone) is neither documented fire fighters' slang, nor documented demo companies' slang. It is Silverstein speaking colloquially, maybe trying, and failing, to use slang. There is nothing more we can deduce from this.

 

[cjnewson88]

At the end of the day, there is zero evidence that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Therefore, Silverstein and his 'pull-it' quote in what ever interpretation truthers want to have it, is irrelevant. End Of Story.

[/Thread?]

 

[RedIbis]

I know you don't think it's funny, but I'm curious: Do you at least understand why it's SUPPOSED to be funny?

I know why you think it's funny.

 

[ergo]

Interesting speculation there, Oystein, and I notice you are taking the standard, 9/11 bedunker, goalpost-shifting fall-back position of: Everyone was mistaken. They didn't know what they were saying. WE (anonymous internet posters, who were not there) KNOW what they were saying.

But it still misses the fact that McQuillan doesn't tell us what Silverstein's recollection of it is. He doesn't say, "Mr. Silverstein recalls talking to a chief of the department..." He tells us, in a well-thought-out, prepared statement intended to correct misunderstandings, what happened, according to Silverstein. There was Silverstein's chance to correct the record and he still doesn't correct it, because according to everyone else, there were no firefighting efforts in WTC 7 whatsoever. So there was nothing to "pull."

Now, you lot have just spent this entire thread trying to argue what "pull" refers to. Now you're admitting that there was nothing to pull?? Do you think maybe you could try sticking to an argument long enough to see where it takes you? It might help you in other areas of your life as well.

 

[DGM]

Now, you lot have just spent this entire thread trying to argue what "pull" refers to .

Actually it would be more accurate to say they got sucked in by the trolls that think this is an issue.

Why don't you believe Silverstiens explanation? Do you have any evidence there was an intentional demolition? Oh right, I forgot, it looked like one to you.

 

[The Big Dog]

With the exception of the NIST and NYT quotes, all the other quotes are actually from bedunkers in this thread.

And no, I think I'll let you answer the question, since you're the ones trying to defend the "pull it" comment here.

Nice try, though.

ZOMG! The "debunkers" in the thread pulled wtc7.

You caught us! Along with Larry Silverstein and the FDNY!

Lulz, pedantic truther more than ten years after the collpase is pedantic.

 

[plague311]

Interesting speculation there, Oystein, and I notice you are taking the standard, 9/11 bedunker, goalpost-shifting fall-back position of: Everyone was mistaken. They didn't know what they were saying. WE (anonymous internet posters, who were not there) KNOW what they were saying.

But it still misses the fact that McQuillan doesn't tell us what Silverstein's recollection of it is. He doesn't say, "Mr. Silverstein recalls talking to a chief of the department..." He tells us, in a well-thought-out, prepared statement intended to correct misunderstandings, what happened, according to Silverstein. There was Silverstein's chance to correct the record and he still doesn't correct it, because according to everyone else, there were no firefighting efforts in WTC 7 whatsoever. So there was nothing to "pull."

Now, you lot have just spent this entire thread trying to argue what "pull" refers to. Now you're admitting that there was nothing to pull?? Do you think maybe you could try sticking to an argument long enough to see where it takes you? It might help you in other areas of your life as well.

I was, literally, laughing out loud at this post. Several facts have been presented that troofers intentionally ignore. Questions have been posed to several of you on this thread alone that you have figure skated around, and you say that Oystein is moving the goal posts? I think the main point, that you obviously missed, is that even if "pull it" meant something devious there is 0 evidence at all that WTC 7 was demolished in a controlled fashion.

Even though they might not have been fighting fires they could have been searching the building for survivors.

 

[Edx]

Interesting speculation there, Oystein, and I notice you are taking the standard, 9/11 bedunker, goalpost-shifting fall-back position of: Everyone was mistaken. They didn't know what they were saying. WE (anonymous internet posters, who were not there) KNOW what they were saying.

But it still misses the fact that McQuillan doesn't tell us what Silverstein's recollection of it is. He doesn't say, "Mr. Silverstein recalls talking to a chief of the department..." He tells us, in a well-thought-out, prepared statement intended to correct misunderstandings, what happened, according to Silverstein.

Ergo Silverstein wasnt mistaken, he said exactly what the FDNY were saying. That they werent going to be able to contain the fire and that they needed to pull the effort back and let it burn.

You're the one that requires him to have 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 in a pre-recorded documentary.

here was Silverstein's chance to correct the record and he still doesn't correct it, because according to everyone else, there were no firefighting efforts in WTC 7 whatsoever. So there was nothing to "pull."
.

But there was "something to pull" because just because there was no firefighting in 7 doesnt mean they didnt pull everyone out of that area due to them thinking the building was probably going to collapse. That is what the FDNY's fire chief Daniel Nigro and dozens of firefighters said happened with no hint of disagreement from any of them anywhere. So if you require there to be no reason to create a collapse zone you have to be saying the entire FDNY are in on it as well.