Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

brazenlilraisin said:
To play your game just momentarily--who cares? Just assuming that the fire had gone out at 5PM and the building didn't still subsequently collapse on its own (a stretch to all but you), do you think he would have aired the thing out, slap in some new drywall and a coat of paint, good as new? This is a serious question. WTC 7 still stands on 9/12...what does Larry do with it then? Do you really have to believe the 9/11 conspiracy so badly that arranging for the demolition of what was then a towering burnt-out hulk is in and of itself suspicious?
Click to expand...

They were talking about the dangers of it falling that day. If they weren't worried that it was going to fall just yet, Silverstein wouldn't be phoning his insurers on 9/11, would he?
 
Justin39640 said:
A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.

The myth that Building 7 was blown up by the U.S. government is false – and so is the broader theory that our government was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. I know this because I was one of the few reporters who investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories and urban legends on location in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the hilites, Justin. I added one of my own.

So, do you think this guy is a credible source? DGM notes that he got Silverstein's holdings wrong, which to him might suggest that the entire rest of the article is suspect. What do you think?
 
I gather by your silence that you can't find anything wrong with my post. You agree with all my points thank you for coming to the other side. Welcome!
 
Well, no he's not a great source, since we know that based on the laws of physics, and video from near the collapse, that in fact it did make noise as it collapsed.

So no, go back and try again.
 
ergo said:
Thanks for the hilites, Justin. I added one of my own.

So, do you think this guy is a credible source? DGM notes that he got Silverstein's holdings wrong, which to him might suggest that the entire rest of the article is suspect. What do you think?
Click to expand...

I'm sure Silverstein's job title wasn't a major deal, after commenting on 9/11. but to you people, its apparently proof of us government guilt.
 
ergo said:
The problem is, your attempts to explain each point have to use separate hypotheses that don't fit well together and that are, furthermore, all reliant entirely on guesses and assumptions.

Your arguments are not credible in face of the facts.
Click to expand...

Again ergo, you have ignored every single point.

Here's some bullet points for you...

  • "pull it" is not a demolition term
  • "pull" is used to refer to firefighting operations.
  • Silverstein has no reason at all to casually admit he demolished his own building. Its almost as if he wasn't really saying that...
  • WTC7 did not collapse in the exact manor as a demolition. A real demolition doesnt have raging out of control fires inside. A real demolition is deafeningly loud.
  • Silverstein still says that it was "they" that made the decision, not him.
  • No one finds it strange, not even his insurers, that Silverstein casually admitted to blowing up his own building apart from truthers.
  • We know firefighters decided WTC7 was likely to collapse several hours earlier.
  • We know firefighters pulled everyone back away from the building several hours earlier. THEY say that it was THEIR decision, the FDNY, to do this.

Just for starters.

But what about that phone call to his insurers you're talking about? We'll need a whole new load of bullet points....

If the story being on the phone to his insurance company must be incorporated into this then....


  • ... it was demolished for safety reasons
  • ... because they believed the building was going collapse.
  • ... they rigged the building in only about 2 to 3 hours, faster that anyone has ever rigged a building for demolition.
  • ... they rigged it while raging fires were inside.
  • .... they rigged it with no one noticing, or the firefighterd and anyone else in the areas failed lied about it.
  • ... everyone decided to coverup this up later for some reason, and decide to lie about it being demolished for safety reasons. For some reason the insurers paid out anyway, despite him asking to have it demolished(?)
  • ... and therefore Jennings couldnt have experienced a bomb, because the building wasnt deemed a collapse risk and so wasnt rigged with explosives at that point


Of course the premise makes no sense, why risk going onto a building thats on fire and likely to collapse and hurt someone by sending demolition teams into it? And why does everyone decide to lie about it if it was all above board and there was no nefarious reason here? So Silverstein gets his insurance money? Nope, that crazy theory cant work either since according to the story it was his insurance company he was talking to.

Go on ergo, ignore this like you do everything else, you can't ever tackle any real issues, Just go ahead and restate your same claims as none of this reality gets in the way.

There is literally no possible way any of this "Silverstein pull it" claim makes any sense in any way whatsoever from any angle you can look at it. The only thing you can do is ignore every response you get and thats exactly what we see here, You and your truther friends literally ignore all responses to this, because you have to.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Thanks for the hilites, Justin. I added one of my own.

So, do you think this guy is a credible source? DGM notes that he got Silverstein's holdings wrong, which to him might suggest that the entire rest of the article is suspect. What do you think?
Click to expand...

Um... it was your source....
 
Edx said:
Again ergo, you have ignored every single point.

Here's some bullet points for you...

  • "pull it" is not a demolition term
  • "pull" is used to refer to firefighting operations.
Click to expand...


  • :eye-poppi

    Even though we can find numerous references for the former and zero references for the latter...

    The rest is not worth responding to.
 
ergo said:
:eye-poppi

Even though we can find numerous references for the former and zero references for the latter...
Click to expand...

Interesting! Show me one.

Thanks.

Remember, it has to be a demolition term to mean put explosives in buildings and blow them up, not refer to a literal act of pulling down a building with cables. Because thats not a demolition term, thats just describing the act.

We both know you cant do it, truthers have been claiming this and failing to back it up ever since they started to make this claim. And FYI "pull" is indeed used to refer to firefighters many, many times. It wouldnt even matter if it was also a demolition term as it still would make any sense that he casually admitted to a massive conspiracy on TV, its just an example of how totally and utterly wrong truthers have to be about just about everything back to front 100% of the time.

The rest is not worth responding to.
Click to expand...

Thanks for doing exactly what I said you'd do you literally cannot ever reply to anyones points against yours. But honestly, I know you just didnt read it.

You know though I'll settle for you replying to one... But we both know you wont just like you wont back up your claim above either.

  • Silverstein has no reason at all to casually admit he demolished his own building.

You have no explanation for that. None at all. You also have no explanation for its sister point that no one noticed that he casually admitted to demolishing his own building.

And you really have no explanation for why he would demolish his building for safety reasons, have it rigged in about 2-3 hours because they believed it was going to collapse (according to your source you posted) and then everyone decides to lie about it later. You also have no explanation for how Jennings experienced a bomb before either tower collapsed when according to your source here, they didnt decide it needed to be demolished until many hours after the collapses.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
You mean re-argue points that have been debunked for years now? No.
Click to expand...

Yet you are posting in a thread about a topic that has been "debunked for years". So why bother posting in this thread?

I ask you to back up a point you make and you refuse, none of you back up any point when challenged to do so about anything on this subject.

For example I challenge you to show me a single occasion where "pull it" is a demolition term to mean put explosives in buildings and blow it up. Hell, I'll settle for "pull", just on its own without the "it" even there, being used for that and I'll be very surprised. No truther has ever been able to show this or even attempted to show it outside the America Rebuilds quote of spectacular quote-mine fail fame. If its been long debunked please post the thread topic, specific post or website or video that shows it has been. I can easily do that with 911myths.com so you should have no trouble, right?


Show me one.
Click to expand...

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

No?

One rule for you, right ergo? Well while you will refuse to even show me where the word "pull" is used to refer to explosive demolition I will show you a few occasions where the word "pull" has been used to refer to rescue operations and firefighting.


There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.
- Captain Ray Goldbach

"7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. "
–Firefighter Kevin Howe

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. 

... 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.
- Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.
- Capt. Chris Boyle

One of the Chiefs pulled us out of there. He said don't go under there. ..We searched that building and then we started making another move in and we got pulled out again, because I guess the Chiefs were getting more in control of the situation. They pulled everybody out of there. ...that was probably like four or five o'clock before we stopped.
–Firefighter Todd Fredrickson
Click to expand...

Theres plenty more examples but thats enough.

So "pull", "pulling" and "pulled" is used to refer to firefighting.

It is not a stretch to think the FDNY rep called him saying they have to pull the firefighting operation, or "pull it". The "it" being the search and rescue operations. It IS a stretch to think alternatively that Silverstein was using demolition slang (that no one uses) to casually admit (but no one notices) he blew his own building up on 911 aided by the FDNY.

So I ask you again, when is the word "pull" or "pull it" used to refer to explosive demolition?

Go on ergo, try and back up a point for once.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Theres plenty more examples but thats enough.

So "pull", "pulling" and "pulled" is used to refer to firefighting.
Click to expand...

And yet not one of those examples mentions "pull it".

The examples you supply can be used in a number of contexts, not just firefighting. Eg: "we pulled the ad", "she pulled her support", "we pulled out at dawn". But to "pull it" in a context where "it" can only mean either the building OR the firefighting effort (which was not even in the building) more likely, using Occam's Razor, means the building. They pulled the building and then they watched it come down.

It's not difficult. It's the questions that it raises that are difficult. Let's move on to those for once.
 
ergo said:
And yet not one of those examples mentions "pull it".

The examples you supply can be used in a number of contexts, not just firefighting. Eg: "we pulled the ad", "she pulled her support", "we pulled out at dawn". But to "pull it" in a context where "it" can only mean either the building OR the firefighting effort (which was not even in the building) more likely, using Occam's Razor, means the building. They pulled the building and then they watched it come down.

It's not difficult. It's the questions that it raises that are difficult. Let's move on to those for once.
Click to expand...

Ergo. You're saying that they loaded that building for demolition only after they found out it was compromised and could potentially collapse. You're saying they did that while it was on fire. You're saying that they doubled the world record while thousands of first responders for outside of the building. You really can't see how insane that is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom